Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Rural Utilities Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employment and Training Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, decreasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. This amendment is required each year to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. In addition, AMS is updating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) statistical reporting numbers that were amended since the last assessment adjustment in 2019.
This direct rule is effective December 4, 2020, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comment is received by November 4, 2020. If significant adverse comment is received, AMS will publish a timely withdrawal of the amendment in the
Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the internet and can be retrieved by most internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Comments, identified by AMS-CN-20-0006, may be submitted electronically through the
Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under Subtitle G of Title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3909, November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorized changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provided for: (1) The assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
This direct final rule would amend the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR 1205.510(b)(2)) that is used to determine the Cotton Research and Promotion assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Research and Promotion Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2019 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
A 500-pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 × 0.453597).
$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound or 0.2000 cents per pound (1/500) or $0.004409 per kg or 0.4409 cents per kg. (1/226.8).
The 2019 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.649 per pound or $1.431 per kg. (0.649 × 2.2046).
Five tenths of one percent of the average price equals $0.007153 per kg. (1.431 × 0.005).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg. and the supplemental assessment $0.007153 per kg., which equals $0.011562 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.012222 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.011562, a decrease of $0.00066 per kilogram. This reflects the decrease in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. farmers during the period January through December 2019.
The Import Assessment Table in section 1205.510(b)(3) of the Order indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number that is subject to assessment. This table must be revised each year to reflect changes in supplemental assessment rates and any changes to the HTS numbers. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
As described in this
Also, this direct-final rulemaking furthers the objectives of Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process “promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”
AMS has used the direct rule rulemaking process since 2013 and has not received any adverse comments; however, if AMS does receives significant adverse comments during the comment period, it will publish, in a timely manner, a document in the
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” ' (February 2, 2017).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the Secretary's ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines, in 13 CFR 121.201, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $1,000,000 and small “Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers” (cotton merchants/importers) as having no more than 100 employees. The Cotton Board estimates 37,000 importers are subject to the rules and regulations issued pursuant to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. According to the United States Census Bureau's “2016 Survey of SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry,” most importers are considered small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products and would decrease the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.012222 per kilogram of imported cotton. The amended assessment would be $0.011562, which was calculated based on the 12-month weighted
Under the Cotton Research and Promotion Program, assessments are used by the Cotton Board to finance research and promotion programs designed to increase consumer demand for Upland cotton in the United States and international markets. In 2018 (the last audited year), producer assessments totaled $49.6 million and importer assessments totaled $38.5 million. According to the Cotton Board, should the volume of cotton products imported into the U.S. remain at the same level in 2020, one could expect a decrease of assessments by approximately $1,208,433.
Imported organic cotton and products may be exempt from assessment if eligible under section 1205.519 of the Order.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093, National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations proposed herein. This period is deemed appropriate because an amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118; 7 U.S.C 7401.
(b) * * *
(2) The 12-month average of monthly weighted average prices received by U.S. farmers will be calculated annually. Such weighted average will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton and will be expressed in kilograms. The value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying this supplemental assessment is $1.1562 cents per kilogram.
(3) * * *
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP). These amendments establish a U.S. Newcastle Disease Clean program within the NPIP, create an NPIP subpart specific to game birds, revise testing requirements, and clarify existing provisions of the regulations. We are also amending the regulations concerning the payment of indemnity and compensation for low pathogenic avian influenza to reflect current policy and operational practices, and allowing NPIP voting delegates to represent multiple States during the Biennial Conferences. These changes were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the NPIP's 2018 National Plan Conference.
Effective November 4, 2020.
Dr. Elena Behnke, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs. The Plan identifies States, independent flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan, and to ensure the plan reflects changes to the poultry industry itself.
On December 5, 2019, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days, ending February 3, 2020. We received 12 comments by that date. The comments were from private citizens, a State department of agriculture, and a representative for the egg farmer industry.
Six individuals were in favor of the rule. Two individuals were generally opposed to NPIP and the poultry industry, but did not address any specific provisions of the proposed rule. The remaining comments are addressed below.
There were three commenters who asked questions regarding the provisions of the rule but did not express favorable or unfavorable viewpoints regarding the rule. One commenter posed a number of questions regarding the provisions of the proposed rule, primarily as they pertain to game birds (for which we proposed specific provisions) and waterfowl (which have an existing subpart). First, the commenter asked how APHIS defines game birds under the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule, game birds are domesticated fowl such as pheasants, partridge, quail, grouse, and guineas, but not doves and pigeons.
The commenter also asked if NPIP certifications would be difficult to obtain if an individual is raising waterfowl and non-waterfowl gamebirds together.
The proposed rule stated in both proposed §§ 145.52(c) and 145.102(c) that it is recommended that gallinaceous flocks and waterfowl flocks be kept separate. However, this does not preclude NPIP certifications for producers who have both flocks on the same premises. For operations that have waterfowl and game birds on the same premises, if the game birds meet the definition of “game bird” in the proposed rule, the game birds can be moved pursuant to the new gamebird-specific regulations in the proposed rule and the waterfowl remain subject to the existing NPIP regulations.
The commenter also asked if “flocksters” need to change their birds' housing to separate quarters.
“Flocksters” refers to small-scale backyard poultry producers. If the birds are covered by two different NPIP subparts, for example, those covered by subpart E of part 145 (waterfowl) and those covered by subpart J of part 145 (gamebird), and are on the same premises, the housing habitat will require separate quarters. The requirements for NPIP participation in relation to housing habitat are found in part 145 (for breeding flocks) and part 146 (for commercial flocks) and further explained in the Program Standards—Standard C Sanitation Procedures. That being said, “flocksters” should also consult the relevant size thresholds for the provisions of the regulations. For example, under part 146, “flockster” table egg layers for who intend the eggs for commercial sale and who have fewer than 75,000 birds are exempt from the provisions in that part.
The commenter also asked if raising gamebirds and non-game birds together would have any effect on NPIP testing.
The Official State Agency will work with producers in each State to determine which classification—subpart E or subpart J—is most appropriate. Birds will be tested accordingly.
The commenter also asked if designated hatcheries, breeders, and growers would need to send in or have specimens checked every 30 days under the proposed rule.
The 30-day specimen check would only apply if the participant wishes to hold the U.S. Salmonella Monitored classification. The 30-day interval for testing that applies for the U.S. Salmonella Monitored Program under § 145.103(d) states: “An Authorized Agent shall collect a minimum of five environmental samples,
We proposed to establish a U.S. Newcastle Disease (ND) Clean program within the NPIP regulations.
One commenter asked what the testing methods for vaccinated and unvaccinated flocks would be for ND.
As we noted in the proposed rule, the approved serological tests for ND are currently the ELISA and hemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests, and the approved molecular-based test for ND is PCR.
The commenter also asked if lab costs were reimbursable for breeders who add ND tests to their regular surveillance protocol for backyard birds.
The new program generally does not apply to backyard poultry breeders, only primary breeders. Primary breeders should not expect an increase in lab costs; however, if lab costs occur, primary breeder labs will be expected to absorb the costs.
We proposed to allow voting delegates to represent multiple States.
A commenter inquired if there was a plan to ensure fair representation regarding delegation and the voting process.
In § 147.45 of the proposed rule, our proposed requirement was that “official delegates shall be elected by a representative group of participating industry members and be certified by the Official State Agency.” Further, “each official delegate shall endeavor to obtain, prior to the Conference, the recommendations of industry members of his State with respect to each proposed change.” We believe these provisions address the commenter's concern.
One commenter expressed concerns about changes to part 56, our indemnity regulations for H5/H7 low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI).
We proposed to amend the terms and definitions of
The commenter opined that this could lead to a dilution of an industry/Federal response to a LPAI event.
The revision to these terms does not change APHIS' response policies for LPAI events.
The regulations in part 56 had referred to payment for birds and eggs destroyed because of LPAI and payment for cleaning and disinfection activities as
The commenter suggested that these revisions could adversely impact the payment of indemnity and compensation to producers.
We are redefining the terms
We proposed the use of a flat rate virus elimination (VE) calculator to determine compensation for VE activities for LPAI. The commenter also expressed concern that a flat rate VE calculator value would not fully compensate for VE activities necessary in all circumstances and all types of egg production facilities.
We explained that the VE calculator is intended to streamline payment for the majority of affected producers, but we recognize that the calculator may not be
The commenter recommended that VE payments be based on the value of the birds housed within a facility, rather than on the cost of eliminating virus from the structure.
We disagree. Compensation for VE activities is intended to cover the costs of those activities, which is not related to the value of the birds housed within a structure. However, we will consider the commenter's proposed methodology for determining the value of layers during our ongoing process of revising our methods of determining fair market value.
In reviewing the provisions of the proposed rule in preparation of this final rule, we noted several instances where the punctuation or the ordering of paragraphs could have led to differing interpretations of the regulations. For example, in several instances, conditions that were intended to be alternating (either one is sufficient) were punctuated in a manner which could make them appear to be joint conditions (both must be completed). In this final rule, we have changed punctuation and renumbered subparagraphs, as warranted, to improve clarity regarding our intent.
Similarly, there were several instances in the preamble of the proposed rule where we suggested wording would be revised each time it occurred within a particular regulatory unit, but neglected to propose to revise each occurrence in the proposed regulatory text for that unit. We have corrected these drafting errors in this final rule.
In this final rule, we are also making minor clarifying edits to paragraph (c) of § 56.4, which discusses the compliance agreements that parties must enter into in order to receive indemnity and/or compensation. We are clarifying that compliance agreements are similar to a statement of work, and may also be referred to as a detailed financial plan. This reflects APHIS guidance to stakeholders regarding the scope and intent of such compliance agreements.
In the proposed rule, we proposed that indemnity for the destruction and disposal of poultry would be calculated using an indemnity calculator, rather than an in-person appraisal of fair market value. Because APHIS is in the process of discontinuing the use of the calculator in favor of a different appraisal apparatus, we have elected not to finalize these proposed changes.
Finally, as noted above, our proposed rule had provisions that allowed for calculating payment for virus elimination using a method other than a VE calculator. However, it did not clarify under what circumstances APHIS would reach such a determination. In this final rule, we are clarifying that this will occur when the claimant and APHIS jointly agree the VE calculator is not applicable to the premises type.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes noted above.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
We have prepared an analysis regarding the economic effects of this final rule on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
We are amending the NPIP, its auxiliary provisions, and the indemnity regulations for the control of H5 and H7 low pathogenic avian influenza to align the regulations with international standards and make them more transparent to stakeholders and the general public. The changes in this final rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the 2018 NPIP National Plan Conference.
The establishments that will be affected by the rule—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition to or modification of requirements could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. NPIP membership is voluntary. The changes contained in this final rule were decided upon by the NPIP General Conference Committee and voting delegates during the 2018 NPIP Biennial Conference; the changes were recognized by the poultry industry as being in their interest.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Low pathogenic avian influenza, Poultry.
Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The additions read as follows:
(i) H5/H7 LPAI virus has been isolated and identified as such from poultry; or
(ii) Viral antigen or viral RNA specific to the H5 or H7 subtype of AI virus has been detected in poultry.
(2) The official determination that H5/H7 LPAI virus has been isolated and identified, or viral antigen or viral RNA specific to the H5 or H7 subtype of AI virus has been detected, may only be made by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories.
(i) Antibodies to the H5 or H7 subtype of the AI virus that are not a consequence of vaccination have been detected in poultry; and
(ii) Samples collected from the flock using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or virus isolation are determined to be not infectious for H5/H7 LPAI.
(2) The official determination that H5/H7 LPAI virus exposure has occurred is by the identification of antibodies to the H5 or H7 subtype of AI virus detected and may only be made by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories.
(a)
(b)
(1)(i) The poultry are from a breeding flock, commercial flock, or slaughter plant that participates in any Plan program in part 145 or 146 of this chapter but that does not participate in the U.S. Avian Influenza Clean, U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Clean, or U.S. H5/H7 Avian Influenza Monitored program of the Plan available to the flock in part 145 or 146 of this chapter; and
(ii) The poultry are from:
(A) A commercial table-egg laying premises with at least 75,000 birds; or
(B) A meat-type chicken slaughter plant that slaughters at least 200,000 meat-type chickens in an operating week; or
(C) A meat-type turkey slaughter plant that slaughters at least 2 million meat-type turkeys in a 12-month period; or
(D) A commercial waterfowl and commercial upland game bird slaughter plant that slaughters at least 50,000 birds annually; or
(E) A raised-for-release upland game bird premises, raised-for-release waterfowl premises, and commercial upland game bird or commercial waterfowl producing eggs for human consumption premises that raise at least 25,000 birds annually; or
(F) A breeder flock premises with at least 5,000 birds.
(2) The poultry are located in a State that does not participate in the diagnostic surveillance program for H5/H7 LPAI, as described in § 146.14 of this chapter, or that does not have an initial State response and containment plan for H5/H7 LPAI that is approved by APHIS
(c)
(a)
(2) Compensation for disposal of poultry and/or eggs infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI will be based on receipts or other documentation maintained by the claimant verifying expenditures for disposal activities authorized by this part. Any disposal of poultry infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI for which compensation is requested must be performed under a compliance agreement between the claimant and APHIS. APHIS will review claims for compensation for disposal to ensure that all expenditures relate directly to activities described in § 56.5 and in the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10. If disposal is performed by the Cooperating State Agency, APHIS will compensate the Cooperating State Agency for disposal under a cooperative agreement.
(3) The destruction and disposal of the poultry and/or eggs must be conducted in accordance with the initial State response and containment plan for H5/H7 LPAI, as described in § 56.10.
(b)
(2) For premises types for which a flat-rate VE calculator is not applicable, reimbursement will be based on receipts or other documentation maintained by the claimant verifying expenditures for cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) activities authorized by this part. Any cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) of premises, conveyances, and materials for which compensation is requested must be performed under a compliance agreement between the claimant, the Cooperating State Agency, and APHIS. APHIS will review claims for compensation for cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) to ensure that all expenditures relate directly to activities described in § 56.5 and in the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10.
(i) In the case of materials, if the cost of cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) would exceed the value of the materials or cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) would be impracticable for any reason, compensation for the destruction of the materials will be based on the fair market value (depreciated value) of those materials, as determined by an appraisal. Materials will be appraised by an APHIS official appraiser. Compensation for disposal of the materials will be based on receipts or other documentation maintained by the claimant verifying expenditures for disposal activities authorized by this part. Appraisals of materials must be reported on forms furnished by APHIS and must be signed by the appraisers and by the owners of the materials to indicate agreement with the appraisal amount. Appraisals of materials must be signed and received by APHIS prior to the disassembly or destruction of the materials, unless the owners, APHIS, and the Cooperating State Agency agree in writing that the materials may be disassembled and/or destroyed immediately. Any disposal of materials for which compensation is requested must be performed under a compliance agreement between the claimant, the Cooperating State Agency, and APHIS. APHIS will review claims for compensation for disposal to ensure that all expenditures relate directly to activities described in § 56.5 and in the initial State response and containment plan described in § 56.10.
(ii) [Reserved]
(c)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) Poultry moved for controlled marketing will not be eligible for indemnity under § 56.3. However, any costs related to cleaning and disinfection (virus elimination) of premises, conveyances, and materials that came into contact with poultry that are moved for controlled marketing will be eligible for compensation under § 56.3.
(d)
The revision reads as follows:
(b) Indemnity for the value of eggs to be destroyed due to infection or exposure to H5/H7 LPAI; and
The revision reads as follows:
(b)(1) If indemnity for the destroyed poultry or eggs is being provided for 100 percent of eligible costs under § 56.3(b), the Administrator may pay contractors eligible for indemnity under this section 100 percent of the amount determined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If indemnity for the destroyed poultry or eggs is being provided for 25 percent of eligible costs under § 56.3(b), the Administrator may pay contractors eligible for indemnity under this section 25 percent of the amount determined in paragraph (a) of this section.
The addition reads as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(1) The virus has an intracerebral pathogenicity index (ICPI) in day-old chicks (Gallusgallus) of 0.7 or greater; or
(2) Multiple basic amino acids have been demonstrated in the virus (either directly or by deduction) at the C-terminus of the F2 protein and phenylalanine at residue 117, which is the N-terminus of the F1 protein. The term `multiple basic amino acids' refers to at least three arginine or lysine residues between residues 113 and 116. Failure to demonstrate the characteristic pattern of amino acid residues as described in the preceding sentences would require characterization of the isolated virus by an ICPI test.
Dealers in hatching eggs, newly hatched poultry, or started poultry shall comply with the provisions in this part (within the NPIP Program Standards document, Program Standard C applies to hatcheries; alternatives to the program standards may also be approved by the Administrator under § 147.53 of this subchapter).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1)
(B) When positive ELISA samples are identified, an AGID test must be conducted within 48 hours.
(ii)
(B) The AGID test for avian influenza must be conducted in accordance with this section (within the NPIP Program Standards document, Program Standard A applies to blood and yolk testing procedures; alternatives to the program standards may also be approved by the Administrator under § 147.53 of this subchapter) for the avian influenza agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test. The test can be conducted on egg yolk or blood samples. The AGID test is not recommended for use in waterfowl.
(C) Positive tests for the AGID must be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories using appropriate tests for confirmation. Final judgment may be based upon further sampling and appropriate tests for confirmation.
(2)
(e)
b. By removing paragraph (d)(3) and redesignating paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (d)(3) and (4), respectively.
The revision reads as follows:
(l) * * *
(2) During each 90-day period, all multiplier spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must be tested and found negative for avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(h)
(1) It is a primary breeding flock that is either:
(i) Vaccinated for Newcastle disease using USDA-licensed vaccines and response to vaccination is serologically monitored using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age, and meets the criteria in paragraph (h)(2) of this section to retain classification; or
(ii) Unvaccinated for Newcastle disease, in which a minimum of 30 birds have tested negative to ND using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age and meets criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this section to retain classification.
(2) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for vaccinated flocks:
(i) Vaccines for ND must be USDA-licensed vaccines administered during early stages of development through rearing, and inactivated vaccines as final vaccination prior to the onset of egg production; and
(ii) The flock has been monitored for antibody response using approved serological tests as listed in § 145.14 and the results are compatible with immunological response against ND vaccination; and
(iii) Testing must include a minimum of 30 birds with a serologic monitoring program when more than 4 months of age and prior to the onset of production and not longer than every 90 days thereafter.
(3) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for unvaccinated flocks:
(i) A minimum of 30 birds per flock must test negative using an approved test in § 145.14 at intervals of 90 days; or
(ii) A sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented and a total of 30 birds is tested within each 90-day period; and
(iii) During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must test negative to ND within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(4) Newcastle disease must be a disease reportable to the responsible State authority (State veterinarian, etc.) by all licensed veterinarians. To accomplish this, all laboratories (private, State, and university laboratories) that perform diagnostic procedures on poultry must examine all submitted cases of unexplained respiratory disease, egg production drops, and mortality for ND.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a)
The additions read as follows:
The revision and addition read as follows:
Participating flocks of hobbyist and exhibition poultry, raised-for-release waterfowl, and the eggs, chicks, started, and mature poultry produced from them shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart. The special provisions that apply to meat-type waterfowl flocks are found in subpart I of this part. The special provisions that apply to game bird flocks are found in subpart J of this part.
(f) All participating raised-for-release waterfowl flocks, regardless of whether they are breeders or non-breeders, shall be enrolled under this subpart.
The revision reads as follows:
(f)
(1) Hatcheries must be kept in a sanitary condition as applicable and as outlined in § 145.6 (within the NPIP Program Standards document, Program Standard C applies to hatcheries; alternatives to the program standards may also be approved by the Administrator under § 147.53 of this subchapter).
(2) An Authorized Agent shall collect and submit to an authorized laboratory:
(i) A minimum of five samples from the hatchery at least every 30 days while in operation. These samples may include: Hatchery debris, swabs from hatchers, setters, hatchery environment, hatchery equipment, sexing tables and belts, meconium, chick box papers, hatching trays, or chick transfer devices. Samples will be examined
(ii) Annual environmental samples from each pullet and breeder farm in accordance with this section (within the NPIP Program Standards document, Program Standard B applies to bacteriological examination procedures; alternatives to the program standards may also be approved by the Administrator under § 147.53 of this subchapter). Samples will be examined bacteriologically at an authorized laboratory for
(3) If
(i) A qualified poultry health professional knowledgeable with the operation will be consulted and will:
(A) Review test results to evaluate the
(B) Use the
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) To claim products are of the classification in this paragraph (f), all products shall be derived from a farm or hatchery that meets the requirements of the classification.
The additions read as follows:
(h)
(1) It is a primary breeding flock that is either:
(i) Vaccinated for Newcastle disease using USDA-licensed vaccines and response to vaccination is serologically monitored using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age and meets the criteria in paragraph (h)(2) of this section to retain classification; or
(ii) Unvaccinated for Newcastle disease, in which a minimum of 30 birds have tested negative to ND using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age and meets criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this section to retain classification.
(2) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for vaccinated flocks:
(i) Vaccines for ND must be USDA-licensed vaccines administered during early stages of development through rearing, and inactivated vaccines as final vaccination prior to the onset of egg production; and
(ii) The flock has been monitored for antibody response using approved serological tests as listed in § 145.14 and the results are compatible with immunological response against ND vaccination; and
(iii) Testing must include a minimum of 30 birds with a serologic monitoring program when more than 4 months of age and prior to the onset of production and not longer than every 90 days thereafter.
(3) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for unvaccinated flocks:
(i) A minimum of 30 birds per flock must test negative using an approved test as described in § 145.14 at intervals of 90 days; or
(ii) A sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented and a total of 30 birds is tested within each 90-day period; and
(iii) During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must test negative to ND within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(4) Newcastle disease must be a disease reportable to the responsible State authority (State veterinarian, etc.) by all licensed veterinarians. To accomplish this, all laboratories (private, State, and university laboratories) that perform diagnostic procedures on poultry must examine all submitted cases of unexplained respiratory disease, egg production drops, and mortality for ND.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a)
The additions read as follows:
(h)
(1) It is a primary breeding flock that is either:
(i) Vaccinated for Newcastle disease using USDA-licensed vaccines and response to vaccination is serologically monitored using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age and meets the criteria in paragraph (h)(2) of this section to retain classification; or
(ii) Unvaccinated for Newcastle disease, in which a minimum of 30 birds have tested negative to ND using an approved test as described in § 145.14 when more than 4 months of age and meets criteria in paragraph (h)(3) of this section to retain classification.
(2) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for vaccinated flocks:
(i) Vaccines for ND must be USDA-licensed vaccines administered during early stages of development through rearing, and inactivated vaccines as final vaccination prior to the onset of egg production; and
(ii) The flock has been monitored for antibody response using approved serological tests as described in § 145.14 and the results are compatible with immunological response against ND vaccination; and
(iii) Testing must include a minimum of 30 birds with a serologic monitoring program when more than 4 months of age and prior to the onset of production, and not longer than every 90 days thereafter.
(3) To retain the classification in this paragraph (h) for unvaccinated flocks:
(i) A minimum of 30 birds per flock must test negative using an approved test as described in § 145.14 at intervals of 90 days; or
(ii) A sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented and a total of 30 birds is tested within each 90-day period; and
(iii) During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must test negative to ND within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter.
(4) Newcastle disease must be a disease reportable to the responsible State authority (State veterinarian, etc.) by all licensed veterinarians. To accomplish this, all laboratories (private, State, and university laboratories) that perform diagnostic procedures on poultry must examine all submitted cases of unexplained respiratory disease, egg production drops, and mortality for ND.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(1) * * *
(i)
Except where the context otherwise requires, for the purposes of this subpart the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean:
Participating flocks of egg/meat-type game birds, raised-for-release game birds, and the products produced from them shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart. Participation is broken into the following categories of operation and products:
(a) The categories for operation are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b) The categories for products are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c) Products shall lose their identity under Plan terminology when not maintained by Plan participants under the conditions prescribed in § 145.5(a).
(d) Hatching eggs produced by breeding flocks shall be nest clean, fumigated, or otherwise sanitized in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(e) It is recommended that gallinaceous flocks and waterfowl flocks be kept separate.
(f) Any nutritive material provided to baby poultry must be free of the avian pathogens that are officially represented in the Plan disease classifications listed in § 145.10.
(g) A flock of game birds that are not breeders, but are located on the same premise as game bird breeders, shall be covered under the same NPIP hatchery approval number as long as the appropriate testing requirements have been met.
(h) All participating raised-for-release game bird flocks, regardless of whether they are breeders or non-breeders, shall be enrolled under this subpart.
(i) A breeder, hatchery, or grower may also be a dealer without being categorized as a dealer. To resell products under the assigned NPIP number and avoid losing NPIP flock classifications, products must be purchased from an NPIP participant with equal or greater classifications or from a flock with equivalent or greater testing requirements under official supervision.
(j) Subject to the approval of the Service and the Official State Agencies in the importing and exporting States, participating flocks may report poultry sales to importing States by using either VS Form 9-3, “Report of Sales of Hatching Eggs, Chicks, and Poults,” or by using an invoice form (9-3I) approved by the Official State Agency and the Service to identify poultry sales to clients. If the 9-3I form is used, the following information must be included on the form:
(1) The form number “9-3I”, printed or stamped on the invoice;
(2) The seller name and address;
(3) The date of shipment;
(4) The invoice number;
(5) The purchaser name and address;
(6) The quantity of products sold;
(7) Identification of the products by bird variety or by NPIP stock code as listed in the NPIP APHIS 91-55-078 appendix; and
(8) The appropriate NPIP illustrative design in § 145.10. One of the designs in § 145.10(b) or (g) must be used. The following information must be provided in or near the NPIP design:
(i) The NPIP State number and NPIP approval number; and
(ii) The NPIP classification for which product is qualified (
Participating flocks, and the eggs, chicks, started, and mature birds produced from them, which have met the respective requirements specified in this section may be designated by the following terms and the corresponding designs illustrated in § 145.10.
(a) [Reserved]
(b)
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) It is a started or mature bird flock that meets the following specifications as determined by the Official State Agency and the Service:
(i) The flock is located in a State where all persons performing poultry disease diagnostic services within the State are required to report to the Official State Agency within 48 hours the source of all poultry specimens from which
(ii) The flock is composed entirely of birds that originated from U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean breeding flocks or from flocks that met equivalent requirements under official supervision; and
(iii) The flock is located on a premises where a flock not classified as U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean was located the previous year;
(3) It is a breeding flock that originated from U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean breeding flocks or from flocks that met equivalent requirements under official supervision, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with no reactors or reactors that upon bacteriologic examination fail to reveal Pullorum-Typhid:
(i) All hatcheries within the State are qualified as “National Plan Hatcheries” or have met equivalent requirements for pullorum-typhoid control under official supervision;
(ii) All hatchery supply flocks within the State are qualified as U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean or have met equivalent requirements for pullorum-typhoid control under official supervision:
(iii) All shipments of products other than U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean, or equivalent, into the State are prohibited;
(iv) All persons performing poultry disease diagnostic services within the State are required to report to the Official State Agency within 48 hours the source of all poultry specimens from which
(v) All reports of any disease outbreak involving a disease covered under the Plan are promptly followed by an investigation by the Official State Agency to determine the origin of the infection;
(vi) All flocks found to be infected with pullorum or typhoid are quarantined until marketed or destroyed under the supervision of the Official State Agency, or until subsequently blood tested, following the procedure for reacting flocks as contained in § 145.14(a)(5), and all birds fail to demonstrate pullorum or typhoid infection;
(vii) All poultry, including exhibition, exotic, and game birds, but excluding waterfowl, going to public exhibition shall come from U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean or equivalent flocks, or have had a negative pullorum-typhoid test within 90 days of going to public exhibition; and
(viii) The flock is located in a State in which pullorum disease or fowl typhoid is not known to exist nor to have existed in hatchery supply flocks within the State during the preceding 24 months.
(ix) Discontinuation of any of the conditions or procedures described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section, or the occurrence of repeated outbreaks of pullorum or typhoid in poultry breeding flocks within or originating within the State shall be grounds for the Service to revoke its determination that such conditions and procedures have been met or complied with. Such action shall not be taken until a thorough investigation has been made by the Service and the Official State Agency has been given an opportunity to present its views.
(c)
(1) It is a flock in which a minimum of 30 birds has been tested negative to the H5 and H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 145.14(d) when more than 4 months of age. To retain the classification in this paragraph (c):
(i) A sample of at least 30 birds must be tested negative at intervals of 90 days; or
(ii) A sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found to be negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented and a total of 30 birds are tested within each 90-day period.
(2) For participants with non-breeding flocks retained for raised-for-release or other purposes on the same premises as a breeding flock, a representative sample of at least 30 birds from the participating premises must be tested negative to the H5 and H7 subtypes of avian influenza as provided in § 145.14(d) when more than 4 months of age, every 90 days.
(d)
(1) An Authorized Agent shall collect a minimum of five environmental samples,
(2) To claim products are of the classification in this paragraph (d), all products shall be derived from a hatchery that meets the requirements of the classification.
(3) The classification in this paragraph (d) may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
(a)
(i) The State is in compliance with the provisions contained in §§ 145.23(b)(3)(i) through (vii), 145.33(b)(3)(i) through (vii), 145.43(b)(3)(i) through (vi), 145.53(b)(3)(i) through (vii), 145.73(b)(2)(i), 145.83(b)(2)(i), 145.93(b)(3)(i) through (vii), and 145.103(b)(3)(i) through (ix).
(ii) No pullorum disease or fowl typhoid is known to exist nor to have existed in hatchery supply flocks within the State during the preceding 12 months:
(2) If there is discontinuation of any of the conditions described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, or repeated outbreaks of pullorum or typhoid occur in hatchery supply flocks described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, or if an infection spreads from the originating premises, the Service shall have grounds to revoke its determination that the State is entitled to this classification in this paragraph (a). Such action shall not be taken until a thorough investigation has been made by the Service and the Official State Agency has been given an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with rules of practice adopted by the Administrator.
(b) [Reserved]
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(B) When positive ELISA samples are identified, an AGID test must be conducted within 48 hours.
(ii)
(B) The AGID test for avian influenza must be conducted in accordance with this section (within the NPIP Program Standards, Program Standard A applies to blood and yolk testing procedures; alternatives to the program standards may also be approved by the Administrator under § 147.53 of this subchapter) for the avian influenza AGID test. The test can be conducted on egg yolk or blood samples. The AGID test is not recommended for use in waterfowl.
(C) Positive tests for the AGID must be further tested by Federal Reference Laboratories using appropriate tests for confirmation. Final judgment may be based upon further sampling and appropriate tests for confirmation.
Except where the context otherwise requires, for the purposes of this subpart the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean:
(a) Participating meat-type game bird slaughter plants, meat-type waterfowl slaughter plants, and egg-type game bird and egg-type waterfowl premises producing eggs for human consumption shall comply with the applicable general provisions of subpart A of this part and the special provisions of this subpart.
(b) Meat-type game bird slaughter plants and meat-type waterfowl slaughter plants that slaughter fewer than 50,000 birds annually are exempt from the special provisions of this subpart.
(c) Egg-type game bird and egg-type waterfowl premises with fewer than 25,000 birds are exempt from the special provisions of this subpart.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) It is a meat-type game bird slaughter plant or meat-type waterfowl slaughter plant that only accepts egg/meat-type game birds or egg/meat-type waterfowl from flocks where a minimum of 11 birds per flock have been tested negative for the H5/H7 subtypes of avian influenza, as provided
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Each cooperating State shall be entitled to one official delegate for each of the programs prescribed in parts 145 and 146 of this subchapter in which it has one or more participants at the time of the Conference. The official delegates shall be elected by a representative group of participating industry members and be certified by the Official State Agency. It is recommended but not required that the official delegates be Plan participants. Individuals may be allowed to be an official delegate or alternate delegate for up to three States in which that delegate has flocks or is a plan participant with acknowledgement and approval of the Official State Agencies. Each official delegate shall endeavor to obtain, prior to the Conference, the recommendations of industry members of their State with respect to each proposed change.
Proposals adopted by the official delegates will be recommended to the Department for incorporation into the provisions of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) in parts 56, 145, and 146 of this chapter and this subpart. The Department reserves the right to approve or disapprove the recommendations of the conference as an integral part of its sponsorship of the National Poultry Improvement Plan. The Department will publish the recommendations in the
(b)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Granby-Grand County, CO.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 31, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Granby-Grand County Airport, Granby, CO, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Granby-Grand County Airport. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.2 miles north and 1.6 miles south of
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.2° miles north and 1.6 miles south of the 110º bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.7 miles east of the airport, and within 2.1 miles north and 2.4 miles south of the 276° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 4.3 miles west of the Granby-Grand County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace at Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. This action also modifies Class E airspace, designated as a surface area. Additionally, this action removes Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area. Further, this action modifies Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action removes the Yakima VOR from the Class E5 airspace legal description. Lastly, this action implements administrative corrections to the airspaces' legal descriptions
Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport, Yakima, WA, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 modifies Class D airspace at Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,600 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 103° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 8.8 miles east of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 289° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.9 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
This action also modifies Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, to be coincident with the new Class D dimensions. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 103° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 8.8 miles east of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 289° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.9 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Additionally, this action revokes Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area. This area is not required based on the instrument procedures published for the airport.
Further, this action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 107° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 11.3 miles east of the airport, and within 3.6 miles each side of the 290° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 11.6 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport.
This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This area is wholly contained within Class E en route airspace which overlies the entire Yakima area, duplication is not necessary.
The action removes the Yakima VOR and all references to the VOR from the Class E5 legal description. The navigational aid is not needed to define the airspace. Removal of the navigational aid allows the airspace to be defined from a single reference point, which simplifies how the airspace is described.
Lastly, this action implements administrative corrections to the airspaces' legal descriptions. The airport name on the second line of the text header does not match the FAA database and is updated to “Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport”. The airport's geographic coordinates do not match the FAA database and are updated to “lat. 46°34′05″ N, long. 120°32′39″ W.” The last sentence in the Class D and Class E surface airspace area's legal descriptions contain outdated verbiage, the term “Airport/Facility Directory” is updated to” Chart Supplement”.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,600 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 103° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 8.8 miles east of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 289° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.9 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 103° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 8.8 miles east of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 289° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6.9 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 107° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 11.3 miles east of the airport, and within 3.6 miles each side of the 290° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 11.6 miles west of Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace at Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport. This action also modifies Class E airspace, designated as a surface area. Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area. Further, this action modifies Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This action also removes Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action also removes the Pendleton VORTAC from the airspace text headers and legal descriptions. Lastly, this action implements administrative corrections to the airspace text headers and legal descriptions.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport, Pendleton, OR, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 modifies Class D airspace at Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport, Pendleton, OR. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
This action modifies Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, to be coincident with the new Class D dimensions. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Additionally, this action establishes Class E airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 129° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 7.3 miles southeast of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport.
Further, this action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the 090° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 14.8 miles east of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 129° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 14.3 miles southeast of the airport, and within 4 miles south and 8 miles north of the 270° bearing from the airport, extending from 4 miles west of the airport to 20 miles west of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport.
This action also removes Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This area is wholly contained within Class E en route airspace which overlies the entire Pendleton area, duplication is not necessary.
The action removes the Pendleton VORTAC and all references to the VORTAC from the Class D, E2, and E5 text headers and legal descriptions.
Lastly, this action implements administrative corrections to the airspace legal descriptions. The airport name on the second line of the text header does not match the FAA database and is updated to “Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport”. The airport's geographic coordinates do not match the FAA database and are updated to “lat. 45°41′41″ N, long. 118°50′35″ W” The last sentence in the Class D and Class E surface area legal descriptions contain the term “Airport/Facilities Directory” the term is updated to “Chart Supplement”.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport. This surface area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport. This surface area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 129° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.1-mile radius to 7.3 miles southeast of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each side of the 090° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 14.8 miles east of the airport, and within 3.4 miles each side of the 129° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 14.3 miles southeast of the airport, and within 4 miles south and 8 miles north of the 270° bearing from the airport, extending from 4 miles west of the airport to 20 miles west of Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lake County Airport. This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 31, 2020. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace at Lake County Airport, Leadville, CO, to ensure the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 modifies Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Lake County Airport. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 3 miles each side of the 164° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 14.5 miles south of the airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of the 350° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 14.7 miles north of Lake County Airport.
This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates to “Lat. 39°13′10″ N, long. 106°18′59″ W.”
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 3 miles each side of the 164° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 14.5 miles south of the airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of the 350° bearing from the airport, extending from the 3.5-mile radius to 14.7 miles north of Lake County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at Hermiston Municipal Airport. This action ensures the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace at Hermiston Municipal Airport, Hermiston, OR, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 establishes Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Hermiston Municipal Airport. This area will contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. This airspace area is described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Hermiston Municipal Airport.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Hermiston Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective October 5, 2020. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 5, 2020.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective October 5, 2020. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104, Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ; and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies certain items subject to Department of Commerce jurisdiction. This final rule revises the CCL, as well as corresponding parts of the EAR, to implement certain changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (WA List) maintained and agreed to by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA) at the December 2019 WA Plenary meeting. The Wassenaar Arrangement advocates implementation of effective export controls on strategic items with the objective of improving regional and international security and stability. This final rule implements multilateral controls on six recently developed or developing technologies, which were identified by the WA December 2019 WA Plenary Meeting in a manner contemplated by the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) to identify emerging technologies that are essential to U.S. national security. This rule harmonizes the CCL with the WA December 2019 Plenary Meeting agreements that pertain to these six technologies. The inclusion of the six technologies in this final rule is consistent with the requirements of ECRA and the decision of the WA to add such technologies to its control lists, thereby making exports of such technologies subject to multilateral control. As these six technologies are recently developed or developing technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States, early implementation of the applicable WA December 2019 Plenary agreements is warranted. The remaining WA 2019 Plenary agreements will be implemented in a separate rule.
This rule is effective October 5, 2020.
For general questions, contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482-2440 or by email:
The Wassenaar Arrangement (Wassenaar or WA) (
To implement the WA control list changes, this rule adds to the EAR's CCL the following six recently developed or developing technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States: Hybrid additive manufacturing (AM)/computer numerically controlled (CNC) tools; computational lithography software designed for the fabrication of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) masks; technology for finishing wafers for 5nm production; digital forensics tools that circumvent authentication or authorization controls on a computer (or communications device) and extract raw data; software for monitoring and analysis of communications and metadata acquired from a telecommunications service provider via a handover interface; and sub-orbital craft.
This rule also makes a correction to one ECCN and revises three related ECCNs and one License Exception.
Note 4 is added at the beginning of the Items paragraph to advise the public that “A machine tool having an additive manufacturing capability in addition to a turning, milling or grinding capability must be evaluated against each applicable entry 2B001.a, .b or .c,” to ensure consistency in application of controls for these hybrid machine tools. Over the last several years, machine tools manufacturers have been adding more functionality by integrating multiple capabilities in their machines. Lately, manufacturers have integrated additive manufacturing and 5-axis computer numerically controlled (CNC) machines. As technology advances, future hybrid machines that also have multi-axis CNC capability will remain controlled in ECCN 2B001 even if it has the added additive manufacturing capability.
Additive Manufacturing machines classified under ECCN 2B001 require a license to countries that have an “X” under columns NS column 2, NP column 1, or AT column 1. License Exception STA, as well as any applicable transaction-based license exceptions, are available if all of the criteria for the license exception are met and none of the restrictions in § 740.2 apply.
The Heading of 3D003 is revised to update controls on emerging Electronic Design Automation (EDA) or computational lithography software developed for Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) masks. Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography (EUVL) introduces a number of issues that must be accurately modeled and corrected on the mask or reticle to produce optimized patterns in resist. Several key issues where specific software is needed for EUVL include mask three-dimensional (3D) effects, mask-shadowing effects, direction of illumination effects, long range flare effects, proximity effects, stochastic effects in resist, and source-masks optimization. Compensation of these effects using software modeling to optimize the patterns on the EUV mask reticle is required for making optimized photoresist patterns on wafers. This software has a license requirement for national security (NS) reasons at the NS column 1 level and for anti-terrorism (AT) reasons at the AT column 1 level. License Exceptions TSR and STA, as well as any applicable transaction-based license exceptions, are available if all of the criteria for the license exception are met and none of the restrictions in § 740.2 apply.
In addition, the two paragraphs in the Related Definitions paragraph are replaced by a definition for `computational lithography.'
This rule adds ECCN 3E004 to control “technology” for the production of substrates for high-end integrated circuits. The parameters include minimization of the flatness and the
This rule makes a correction by removing 5D001.b from the Special Conditions for STA, because 5D001.b was removed from the 5D001 entry in 2014 and reserved at that time.
This rule adds Item paragraph 5D001.e to control specified surveillance “software,” other than that specified by 5D001.a or 5D001.c, “specially designed” or modified for monitoring or analysis by law enforcement, including a Technical Note that defines `handover interface' and specifies some international standards examples. This new entry controls software that is specially designed for use by law enforcement to analyze the content of communications acquired from a handover interface. Such software can be used by international actors in ways that are contrary to U.S. national security. To be controlled, the software must meet both parameters in subparagraphs 5D001.e.1 and e.2, specifically, it must provide the ability to execute searches on the basis of “hard selectors” of either the content of communication or metadata acquired from a communications service provider using a `handover interface' and it must provide the ability to map the relational network or track the movement of targeted individuals based on such searches. This new entry does not control network management tools or banking software and therefore includes an exclusion note for “software” “specially designed” or modified for any of the following: Billing purposes, Network Quality of Service (QoS), Quality of Experience (QoE), mediation devices, or mobile payment or banking use. Mediation devices for lawful intercept by the communication service provider may be controlled in 5A980 or 5D980 and are not included in this entry. A definition of “hard selectors” is added to § 772.1 (Definitions) of the EAR. This software has a license requirement for NS column 1, and AT column 1. This software and its corresponding technology are added to the eligibility paragraph for License Exception TSR, limited to Country Group A:5 as specified in the TSR paragraph of the List Based License Exceptions section of ECCNs 5D001 and 5E001. This software and technology are also eligible for License Exception STA.
This rule adds 5D001.e surveillance software to 5E001.a to control “technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development”, “production” or “use” (excluding operation) of “software” controlled by 5D001.e. This technology has a license requirement for NS column 1 and AT column 1. This technology is added to the eligibility paragraph for License Exception TSR, as specified in the TSR paragraph of the List Based License Exceptions section of ECCN 5E001. This technology is also eligible for License Exception STA.
This rule adds paragraph 5A004.b to control digital forensics or investigative tools. This new entry controls items that circumvent authentication or authorization mechanisms and extract raw data from a computer or communications device. Although once used primarily by law enforcement, these items are increasingly being used by the military to extract time-critical information from devices found on the battlefield. The purpose of the text is to control items that can quickly analyze a device and recover protected information,
5A004.b requires a license to countries that have an “X” under columns NS column 1 or AT column 1. An encryption item (EI) license requirement also applies. See § 742.15 of the EAR. License Exception LVS and ENC are available as specified in the List Based License Exceptions of 5A004 and the applicable license exception criteria in part 740 so long as none of the restrictions set forth in § 740.2 apply.
This rule also makes changes to License Exception ENC consistent with the addition of 5A004.b. The first sentence in the introductory paragraph to § 740.17 is revised by adding “and digital forensics items (investigative tools)” to the list of items authorized by License Exception ENC. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Note to paragraph (b)(2) introductory text are amended by adding “classified in ECCN 5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or c.3.a, or 5E002” to clarify what is meant by “cryptanalytic items.” Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is changed by replacing the reference to “5A004 or 5D002” with a reference to “5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or 5D002.c.3.a” where the paragraph mentions “cryptanalytic items.” Paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) is revised by removing “including network or computer forensics” from the title and replacing it with “and investigative tools”; and revising the text of the paragraph to point to ECCN 5A004.b for specific characteristics of digital forensics items (investigative tools) subject to the thirty-day (30-day) classification request requirement.
This rule amends 5D002 by revising Item paragraphs 5D002.a.3 and c.3, which are the associated software controls for 5A004 items, to add software controls for 5A004.b digital forensics or investigative tools. This rule also adds an exclusion note to 5D002.c.3.b to exclude “intrusion software.” This rule adds to § 772.1 the definition of “intrusion software” from the agreements reached at the 2013 WA
This rule adds an exclusion note to Item paragraph 5E002.a to exclude “technology” for items specified by 5A004.b, 5D002.a.3.b or 5D002.c.3.b. The techniques that are used to circumvent authentication and authorization and extract raw data are well known and therefore do not warrant additional controls. In addition, information on these techniques is often exchanged as part of cyber incident response and vulnerability analysis activities and therefore controlling such information could adversely impact those activities.
This rule adds “sub-orbital craft” to Item paragraph 9A004.h and the definition for “sub-orbital craft” to § 772.1 of the EAR. A sub-orbital craft is designed to operate above the stratosphere and land on Earth without completing an orbit. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of “spacecraft”, which is limited to satellites and space probes. Certain types of sub-orbital craft could already be considered to be controlled under 9A004 as space launch vehicles. However, an overall space launch system may consist of several stages, one of which may be a re-usable spaceplane. This item would generally not be considered a space launch vehicle. While this rule adds 9A004.h for consistency with the Wassenaar List of Dual-Use Goods, the “sub-orbital craft” described by 9A004.h falls within the scope of 9A515.a and is controlled by that entry if subject to the EAR. It should be noted that ITAR Category XV(a)(11) captures certain sub-orbital craft.
“Sub-orbital craft” warrant the same STA eligibility as “spacecraft” described in 9A515.a.1, a.2, a.3 and a.4. Therefore, this rule revises the Special Conditions for STA by adding “sub-orbital craft” to paragraph (1). This means that STA may not be used for “sub-orbital craft” unless determined by BIS to be eligible for License Exception STA in accordance with § 740.20(g) (License Exception STA eligibility requests for certain 9x515 and “600 series” items). Paragraph (c)(2) of License Exception STA (§ 740.20(c)(2) of the EAR) may not be used for any item in 9A515. Note that 9A515 is eligible for License Exception Limited Value Shipment (LVS) at $1500.
This rule also amends paragraph 9A515.a to add “sub-orbital craft,” because BIS lists “spacecraft” and related commodities in 9A515 of the CCL to more easily implement appropriate license requirements and exceptions. “Sub-orbital craft” under ECCN 9A515.a require a license to countries that have an “X” under columns NS column 1, RS column 1, or AT column 1, which means a license is required for all destinations other than Canada.
For added clarity, this rule adds “sub-orbital craft” to the Note to 9A515.a, which explains what is included in 9A515.a.
This rule amends paragraph (g) “License Exception STA eligibility requests for 9x515 and “600 series” items”. This revision will clarify that “sub-orbital craft”, “spacecraft” described in ECCNs 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3, .a.4, and remote sensing components “specially designed” for these “spacecraft” described in 9A515.g, require prior approval before using License Exception STA.
This rule enumerates each sentence in the Related Controls paragraph and adds a third sentence that explains that in classifying “UAVs” that are “sub-orbital craft” exporters should look at 9A004.h and 9A515.a.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which includes the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. Sections 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on October 5, 2020, pursuant to actual orders for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before December 4, 2020. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, local time, on December 4, 2020, require a license in accordance with this final rule.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) was established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations. The goal was also to prevent the acquisition of such items by terrorists. There are presently 42 Participating States, including the United States, which seek through their national policies to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities that undermine these goals, and to ensure that these items are not diverted to support such military capabilities. Implementation of the WA Plenary agreements in a timely manner enhances the national security of the United States and global international trade.
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that
This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA: 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application”, which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission; 0694-0137 “License Exceptions and Exclusions”, which carries a burden hour estimate average of 1.5 hours per electronic submission (Note: Submissions for License Exceptions are rarely required); 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period”, which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program”, which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission. Specific license application submission estimates are discussed further in the preamble of this rule where the revision is explained. BIS estimates that revisions that are editorial, including moving the location of control text on the Commerce Control List, or that clarify language, will result in no change in license application submissions.
Any comments regarding these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to OMB Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
Pursuant to § 4821 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, parts 740, 772, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
The revised text is set forth below.
License Exception ENC authorizes export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of systems, equipment, commodities, and components therefor that are classified under ECCN 5A002, 5B002, equivalent or related software and technology therefor classified under 5D002 or 5E002, and “cryptanalytic items” and digital forensics items (investigative tools) classified under ECCN 5A004, 5D002 or 5E002. * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
* * *
1. All submitted encryption items described in this paragraph (b)(2), except “cryptanalytic items,” classified in ECCN 5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or c.3.a, or 5E002, to any end user located or headquartered in a country listed in supplement no. 3 to this part;
3. “Cryptanalytic items,” classified in ECCN 5A004.a, 5D002.a.3.a or c.3.a, or 5E002, to non-“government end users,” only, located or headquartered in a country listed in supplement no. 3 to this part; and
(ii)
(iv) * * *
(B)
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B)
(g) * * * (1)
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
The additions read as follows:
(1) The extraction of data or information, from a computer or network-capable device, or the modification of system or user data; or
(2) The modification of the standard execution path of a program or process in order to allow the execution of externally provided instructions.
“Intrusion software” does not include any of the following: Hypervisors, debuggers or Software Reverse Engineering (SRE) tools; Digital Rights Management (DRM) “software”; or “Software” designed to be installed by manufacturers, administrators or users, for the purposes of asset tracking or recovery.
Network-capable devices include mobile devices and smart meters.
`Monitoring tools': “software” or hardware devices, that monitor system behaviors or processes running on a device. This includes antivirus (AV) products, end point security products, Personal Security Products (PSP), Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) or firewalls.
`Protective countermeasures': techniques designed to ensure the safe execution of code, such as Data Execution Prevention (DEP), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) or sandboxing.
“
(1) Operate above the stratosphere;
(2) Perform a non-orbital trajectory;
(3) Land back on Earth with the people or cargo intact.
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
The revisions and additions read as follows:
a. Machine tools for turning having two or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control” having any of the following:
a.1. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 0.9 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length less than 1.0 m;
a.2. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.1 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 1.0 m;
a. Machine controller limited to using ophthalmic based “software” for part programming data input;
b. No vacuum chucking.
b. Machine tools for milling having any of the following:
b.1. Three linear axes plus one rotary axis which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control” having any of the following:
b.1.a. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 0.9 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length less than 1.0 m;
b.1.b. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.1 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 1.0 m;
b.2. Five or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control” having any of the following:
b.2.a. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 0.9 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length less than 1.0 m;
b.2.b. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.4 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 1 m and less than 4 m;
b.2.c. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 6.0 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 4 m;
b.3. A “unidirectional positioning repeatability” for jig boring machines, equal to or less (better) than 1.1 µm along one or more linear axis;
b.4. Fly cutting machines having all of the following:
b.4.a. Spindle “run-out” and “camming” less (better) than 0.0004 mm TIR;
b.4.b. Angular deviation of slide movement (yaw, pitch and roll) less (better) than 2 seconds of arc, TIR, over 300 mm of travel;
c. Machine tools for grinding having any of the following:
c.1. Having all of the following:
c.1.a. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.1 µm along one or more linear axis;
c.1.b. Three or four axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control”;
c.2. Five or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control” having any of the following:
c.2.a. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.1 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length less than 1m;
c.2.b. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 1.4 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 1 m and less than 4 m;
c.2.c. “Unidirectional positioning repeatability” equal to or less (better) than 6.0 µm along one or more linear axis with a travel length equal to or greater than 4 m.
2B001.c does not control grinding machines as follows:
a. Cylindrical external, internal, and external-internal grinding machines, having all of the following:
a.1. Limited to cylindrical grinding; and
a.2. Limited to a maximum workpiece capacity of 150 mm outside diameter or length.
b. Machines designed specifically as jig grinders that do not have a z-axis or a w-axis, with a “unidirectional positioning repeatability” less (better) than 1.1 µm.
c. Surface grinders.
d. Electrical discharge machines (EDM) of the non-wire type which have two or more rotary axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control”;
e. Machine tools for removing metals, ceramics or “composites”, having all of the following:
e.1. Removing material by means of any of the following:
e.1.a. Water or other liquid jets, including those employing abrasive additives;
e.1.b. Electron beam; or
e.1.c. “Laser” beam; and
e.2. At least two rotary axes having all of the following:
e.2.a. Can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control”;
e.2.b. A positioning “accuracy” of less (better) than 0.003°;
f. Deep-hole-drilling machines and turning machines modified for deep-hole-drilling, having a maximum depth-of-bore capability exceeding 5m.
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions and Validated End-User authorizations.
(1) “Software” controlled by 5D001.a and “specially designed” for items controlled by 5A001.b.5 and 5A001.h. or
(2) “Software” controlled by 5D001.e.
a. “Software” “specially designed” or modified for the “development”, “production” or “use” of equipment, functions or features controlled by 5A001;
b. [Reserved]
c. Specific “software” “specially designed” or modified to provide characteristics, functions or features of equipment, controlled by 5A001 or 5B001;
d. “Software” “specially designed” or modified for the “development” of any of the following telecommunication transmission or switching equipment:
d.1. [Reserved]
d.2. Equipment employing a “laser” and having any of the following:
d.2.a. A transmission wavelength exceeding 1,750 nm;
d.2.b. Employing analog techniques and having a bandwidth exceeding 2.5 GHz;
d.3. [Reserved]
d.4. Radio equipment employing Quadrature-Amplitude-Modulation (QAM) techniques above level 1,024;
e. “Software”, other than that specified by 5D001.a or 5D001.c, “specially designed” or modified for monitoring or analysis by law enforcement, providing all of the following:
e.1. Execution of searches on the basis of “hard selectors” of either the content of communication or metadata acquired from a communications service provider using a `handover interface';
2.
e.2. Mapping of the relational network or tracking the movement of targeted individuals based on the results of searches on content of communication or metadata or searches as described in 5D001.e.1.
d. Mediation devices; or
See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions and Validated End-User authorizations.
(1) Items controlled by 5A001.b.5 or 5A001.h;
(2) “Software” controlled by 5D001.a that is “specially designed” for the “development” or “production” of equipment, functions or features controlled by 5A001.b.5 or 5A001.h.; or
(3) “Software” controlled by 5D001.e.
a. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development”, “production” or “use” (excluding operation) of equipment, functions or features, controlled by 5A001 or “software” controlled by 5D001.a or 5D001.e.
b. Specific “technology”, as follows:
b.1. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of telecommunications equipment “specially designed” to be used on board satellites;
b.2. “Technology” for the “development” or “use” of “laser” communication techniques with the capability of automatically acquiring and tracking signals and maintaining communications through exoatmosphere or sub-surface (water) media;
b.3. “Technology” for the “development” of digital cellular radio base station receiving equipment whose reception capabilities that allow multi-band, multi-channel, multi-mode, multi-coding algorithm or multi-protocol operation can be modified by changes in “software”;
b.4. “Technology” for the “development” of “spread spectrum” techniques, including “frequency hopping” techniques.
c. “Technology” according the General Technology Note for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
c.1. [Reserved]
c.2. Equipment employing a “laser” and having any of the following:
c.2.a. A transmission wavelength exceeding 1,750 nm;
c.2.b. [Reserved]
c.2.c. [Reserved]
c.2.d. Employing wavelength division multiplexing techniques of optical carriers at less than 100 GHz spacing;
c.2.e. Employing analog techniques and having a bandwidth exceeding 2.5 GHz;
c.3. Equipment employing “optical switching” and having a switching time less than 1 ms;
c.4. Radio equipment having any of the following:
c.4.a. Quadrature-Amplitude-Modulation (QAM) techniques above level 1,024;
c.4.b. Operating at input or output frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz;
c.4.c. Operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and incorporating adaptive techniques providing more than 15 dB suppression of an interfering signal;
c.5. [Reserved]
c.6. Mobile equipment having all of the following:
c.6.a. Operating at an optical wavelength greater than or equal to 200nm and less than or equal to 400nm;
c.6.b. Operating as a “local area network”;
d. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development” or “production” of “Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit” (“MMIC”) amplifiers “specially designed” for telecommunications and that are any of the following:
d.1. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%, and having any of the following:
d.1.a. A peak saturated power output greater than 75 W (48.75 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz;
d.1.b. A peak saturated power output greater than 55 W (47.4 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 GHz;
d.1.c. A peak saturated power output greater than 40 W (46 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 GHz;
d.1.d. A peak saturated power output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz;
d.2. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 16 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%, and having any of the following:
d.2.a. A peak saturated power output greater than 10W (40 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 GHz; or
d.2.b. A peak saturated power output greater than 5W (37 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 16 GHz;
d.3. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 3 W (34.77 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.4. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 GHz;
d.5. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.6. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 31.62 mW (15 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz up to and including 75 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.7. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 10 mW (10 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 75 GHz up to and including 90 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 5%; or
d.8. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 90 GHz;
e. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development” or “production” of electronic devices and circuits, “specially designed” for telecommunications and containing “components” manufactured from “superconductive” materials, “specially designed” for operation at temperatures below the “critical temperature” of at least one of the “superconductive” constituents and having any of the following:
e.1. Current switching for digital circuits using “superconductive” gates with a product of delay time per gate (in seconds) and power dissipation per gate (in watts) of less than 10
e.2. Frequency selection at all frequencies using resonant circuits with Q-values exceeding 10,000.
a. Designed or modified to perform `cryptanalytic functions.'
b. Items, not specified by 5A004.a, designed to perform all of the following:
b.1. `Extract raw data' from a computing or communications device;
b.2. Circumvent “authentication” or authorisation controls of the device, in order to perform the function described in 5A004.b.1.
a. “Software” “specially designed” or modified for the “development,” “production” or “use” of any of the following:
a.1. Equipment specified by 5A002 or “software” specified by 5D002.c.1;
a.2. Equipment specified by 5A003 or “software” specified by 5D002.c.2;
a.3. Equipment or “software”, as follows:
a.3.a. Equipment specified by 5A004.a or “software” specified by 5D002.c.3.a;
a.3.b. Equipment specified by 5A004.b or “software” specified by 5D002.c.3.b;
b. “Software” having the characteristics of a ‘cryptographic activation token' specified by 5A002.b;
c. “Software” having the characteristics of, or performing or simulating the functions of, any of the following:
c.1. Equipment specified by 5A002.a, .c, .d or .e;
5D002.c.1 does not apply to “software” limited to the tasks of “OAM” implementing only published or commercial cryptographic standards.
c.2. Equipment specified by 5A003;
c.3. Equipment, as follows:
c.3.a. Equipment specified by 5A004.a;
c.3.b. Equipment specified by 5A004.b.
5D002.c.3.b does not apply to “intrusion software”.
d. [Reserved]
See 5D002.b for items formerly specified in 5D002.d.
a. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development,” “production” or “use” of equipment controlled by 5A002, 5A003, 5A004 or 5B002, or of “software” controlled by 5D002.a or 5D002.c.
5E002.a does not apply to “technology” for items specified by 5A004.b, 5D002.a.3.b or 5D002.c.3.b.
b. “Technology” having the characteristics of a `cryptographic activation token' specified by 5A002.b.
5E002 includes “information security” technical data resulting from procedures carried out to evaluate or determine the implementation of functions, features or techniques specified in Category 5-Part 2.
9A004.b through .f, and .h are controlled under ECCN 9A515.
a. Space launch vehicles;
b. “Spacecraft”;
c. “Spacecraft buses”;
d. “Spacecraft payloads” incorporating items specified by 3A001.b.1.a.4, 3A002.g, 5A001.a.1, 5A001.b.3, 5A002.c, 5A002.e, 6A002.a.1, 6A002.a.2, 6A002.b, 6A002.d, 6A003.b, 6A004.c, 6A004.e, 6A008.d, 6A008.e, 6A008.k, 6A008.l or 9A010.c;
e. On-board systems or equipment, specially designed for “spacecraft” and having any of the following functions:
e.1. ‘Command and telemetry data handling';
For the purpose of 9A004.e.1, `command and telemetry data handling' includes bus data management, storage, and processing.
e.2. `Payload data handling';
For the purpose of 9A004.e.2, `payload data handling' includes payload data management, storage, and processing.
e.3. `Attitude and orbit control';
For the purpose of 9A004.e.3, `attitude and orbit control' includes sensing and actuation to determine and control the position and orientation of a “spacecraft”.
Equipment specially designed for military use is “subject to the ITAR”. See 22 CFR parts 120 through 130.
f. Terrestrial equipment specially designed for “spacecraft”, as follows:
f.1. Telemetry and telecommand equipment “specially designed” for any of the following data processing functions:
f.1.a. Telemetry data processing of frame synchronization and error corrections, for monitoring of operational status (also known as health and safe status) of the “spacecraft bus”;
f.1.b. Command data processing for formatting command data being sent to the “spacecraft” to control the “spacecraft bus”;
f.2. Simulators “specially designed” for `verification of operational procedures' of “spacecraft”.
For the purposes of 9A004.f.2, `verification of operational procedures' is any of the following:
1. Command sequence confirmation;
2. Operational training;
3. Operational rehearsals; or
4. Operational analysis.
g. “Aircraft” “specially designed” or modified to be air-launch platforms for space launch vehicles;
h. “Sub-orbital craft”.
i. through t. [RESERVED]
u. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) being developed, launched, and operated under the supervision of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
v. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for the James Webb Space Telescope and that are
v.1. Enumerated or controlled in the USML;
v.2. Microelectronic circuits;
v.3. Described in ECCN 7A004 or 7A104;
v.4. Described in an ECCN containing “space-qualified” as a control criterion (
w. The International Space Station being developed, launched, and operated under the supervision of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for the International Space Station.
y. Items that would otherwise be within the scope of ECCN 9A004.v or .x but that have been identified in an interagency-cleared commodity classification (CCATS) pursuant to § 748.3(e) as warranting control in 9A004.y.
a. “UAVs” or unmanned “airships”, designed to have controlled flight out of the direct `natural vision' of the `operator' and having any of the following:
a.1. Having all of the following:
a.1.a. A maximum `endurance' greater than or equal to 30 minutes but less than 1 hour; and
a.1.b. Designed to take-off and have stable controlled flight in wind gusts equal to or exceeding 46.3 km/h (25 knots);
a.2. A maximum `endurance' of 1 hour or greater;
b. Related equipment and “components”, as follows:
b.1 [Reserved]
b.2. [Reserved]
b.3. Equipment or “components” “specially designed” to convert a manned “aircraft” or a manned “airship” to a “UAV” or unmanned “airship”, controlled by 9A012.a;
b.4. Air breathing reciprocating or rotary internal combustion type engines, “specially designed” or modified to propel “UAVs” or unmanned “airships”, at altitudes above 15,240 meters (50,000 feet).
“Spacecraft” and other items described in ECCN 9A515 remain subject to the EAR even if exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) with defense articles “subject to the ITAR” integrated into and included therein as integral parts of the item. In all other cases, such defense articles are subject to the ITAR. For example, a 9A515.a “spacecraft” remains “subject to the EAR” even when it is exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) with a “hosted payload” described in USML Category XV(e)(17) incorporated therein. In all other cases, a “hosted payload” performing a function described in USML Category XV(a) always remains a USML item. The removal of the defense article subject to the ITAR from the spacecraft is a retransfer under the ITAR and would require an ITAR authorization, regardless of the CCL authorization the spacecraft is exported under. Additionally, transfer of technical data regarding the defense article subject to the ITAR integrated into the spacecraft would require an ITAR authorization.
a. “Spacecraft,” including satellites, and space vehicles and “sub-orbital craft,” whether designated developmental, experimental, research or scientific, not enumerated in USML Category XV or described in ECCN 9A004.u or .w, that:
a.1. Have electro-optical remote sensing capabilities and having a clear aperture greater than 0.35 meters, but less than or equal to 0.50 meters;
a.2. Have remote sensing capabilities beyond NIR (
a.3. Have radar remote sensing capabilities (
a.4. Provide space-based logistics, assembly, or servicing of another “spacecraft”;
a.5. Are not described in ECCN 9A515.a.1, .a.2, .a.3 or .a.4.
b. Ground control systems and training simulators “specially designed” for telemetry, tracking, and control of the “spacecraft” controlled in paragraphs 9A004.u or 9A515.a.
c. [Reserved]
d. Microelectronic circuits (
d.1. A total dose of 5 x 10
d.2. A dose rate upset threshold of 5 x 10
d.3. A neutron dose of 1 x 10
d.4. An uncorrected single event upset sensitivity of 1 x 10
d.5. An uncorrected single event upset sensitivity of 1 x 10
e. Microelectronic circuits (
e.1. A total dose ≥1 X 10
e.2. A total dose ≥5 × 10
f. Pressure suits (
g. Remote sensing components “specially designed” for “spacecraft” described in ECCNs 9A515.a.1 through 9A515.a.4 as follows:
g.1. Space-qualified optics (
g.2. Optical bench assemblies “specially designed” for ECCN 9A515.a.1, 9A515.a.2, 9A515.a.3, or 9A515.a.4 “spacecraft;”
g.3. Primary, secondary, or hosted payloads that perform a function of ECCN 9A515.a.1, 9A515.a.2, 9A515.a.3, or 9A515.a.4 “spacecraft.”
h. Spacecraft thrusters using bi-propellants or mono-propellants that provide thrust equal to or less than 150 lbf (
i. through w. [RESERVED]
x. “Parts,” “components,” “accessories” and “attachments” that are “specially designed” for defense articles controlled by USML Category XV or items controlled by 9A515, and that are NOT:
x.1. Enumerated or controlled in the USML or elsewhere within ECCNs 9A515 or 9A004;
x.2. Microelectronic circuits and discrete electronic components;
x.3. Described in ECCNs 7A004 or 7A104;
x.4. Described in an ECCN containing “space-qualified” as a control criterion (
x.5. Microwave solid state amplifiers and microwave assemblies (refer to ECCN 3A001.b.4 for controls on these items);
x.6. Travelling wave tube amplifiers (refer to ECCN 3A001.b.8 for controls on these items);
x.7. Elsewhere specified in ECCN 9A515.y.
y. Items that would otherwise be within the scope of ECCN 9A515.x but that have been identified in an interagency-cleared commodity classification (CCATS) pursuant to § 748.3(e) as warranting control in 9A515.y.
y.1. Discrete electronic components not specified in 9A515.e;
y.2. Space grade or for spacecraft applications thermistors;
y.3. Space grade or for spacecraft applications RF microwave bandpass ceramic filters (Dielectric Resonator Bandpass Filters);
y.4. Space grade or for spacecraft applications hall effect sensors;
y.5. Space grade or for spacecraft applications subminiature (SMA and SMP) plugs and connectors, TNC plugs and cable and connector assemblies with SMA plugs and connectors;
y.6. Space grade or for spacecraft applications flight cable assemblies.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) is amending its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by updating the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (the “Registry”) as required by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007.
Effective October 5, 2020. The revised fees will be applicable October 1, 2020.
Copies of this document are available on the internet at the Commission's website:
Ami Joy Dziekan (202-326-2648), Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room CC-9225, Washington, DC 20580.
To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (15 U.S.C. 6152) (the “Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry as follows: The revised rule increases the annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data from $65 to $66 per area code; and increases the maximum amount that will be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data from $17,765 to $18,044. Entities may add area codes during the second six months of their annual subscription period, and the fee for those additional area codes increases to $33 from $32.
These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008. The Act also states that any increase shall be rounded to the nearest dollar and that there shall be no increase in the dollar amounts if the change in the CPI since the last fee increase is less than one percent. For fiscal year 2009, the Act specified that the original annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data was $54 per area code, or $27 per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period, and that the maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data would be $14,850.
The determination whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee change involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2020. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 1.56 percent. Because this change is over the one percent
Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above: The percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008, was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020, was 257.230, an increase of 21.51 percent. Applying the 21.51 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to a $66 fee for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2021, an increase of $1 from last year. The actual amount is $65.62, but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, $66 is the appropriate fee. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year increases by one dollar to $33 (rounded from $32.81). The maximum amount charged increases to $18,044 (rounded from $18,044.24).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the Amended TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084-0169. The amendments outlined in this Final Rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the Amended TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the Amended TSR.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Trade practices.
Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 6101-6108; 15 U.S.C. 6151-6155.
(c) The annual fee, which must be paid by any person prior to obtaining access to the National Do Not Call Registry, is $66 for each area code of data accessed, up to a maximum of $18,044;
(d) Each person who pays, either directly or through another person, the annual fee set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, each person excepted under paragraph (c) from paying the annual fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), will be provided a unique account number that will allow that person to access the registry data for the selected area codes at any time for the twelve month period beginning on the first day of the month in which the person paid the fee (“the annual period”). To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the first six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under paragraph (c) of this section must first pay $66 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under paragraph (c) of this section must first pay $33 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. The payment of the additional fee will permit the person to access the additional area codes of data for the remainder of the annual period.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Slaughter and Commissioner Wilson not participating.
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Education.
Interim final regulations.
The Department of Education (Department) issues these interim final regulations to codify procedures relating to the issuance of rulemaking and guidance documents. These regulations implement an Executive order entitled “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,” issued on Oct. 9, 2019, whose central principles are transparency and the presumption that guidance documents only clarify existing legal obligations and may not become a vehicle for implementing new, binding requirements on stakeholders or the public. In addition, these, these regulations outline how the Department will develop rules and the circumstances under which it will do so.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
If you are submitting comments electronically, we strongly encourage you to submit any comments or attachments in Microsoft Word format.
•
•
For further information, contact Lynn Mahaffie, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6E231, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7862. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at (800) 877-8339.
To ensure that your comments may be most effectively considered, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section or sections of the interim final regulations that each comment addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the interim final regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these interim final regulations. Please let us know of any further ways by which we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these interim final regulations by accessing
Through this interim final rule, the Department establishes a comprehensive set of policies and procedures that will increase transparency, provide for more robust public participation, and strengthen the overall quality and fairness of the Department's processes for issuing regulatory and guidance documents. The regulations implement Executive Order 13891, issued on Oct. 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), which requires Federal agencies, including the Department, to publish regulations that set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents. In addition, the Department is taking this opportunity to describe how and under what circumstances it develops regulations.
The procedures contained in this interim final rule apply to all phases of the Department's rulemaking process. The interim final rule outlines the Department's regulatory policies, such as avoiding excessive regulation and ensuring that, where they impose burdens, regulations are narrowly tailored to address identified market failures or statutory mandates, and that they specify performance objectives when appropriate.
This interim final rule reflects the existing role of the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force in the development of the Department's regulatory portfolio and ongoing review of regulations. Established in response to Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” issued on Feb. 24, 2017 (82 FR 12285), the Regulatory Reform Task Force is the Department's internal body, chaired by its Regulatory Reform Officer, tasked with evaluating proposed and existing regulations and making recommendations to the Secretary of Education regarding their promulgation, repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.
This interim final rule also prescribes the procedures the Department must follow for all stages of the rulemaking process, including the initiation of new rulemakings, the development of economic analyses, the contents of rulemaking documents, their review process, and the opportunity for public participation. The interim final rule also reflects the Department's existing policies regarding contacts with outside parties during the rulemaking process as well as the ongoing review of existing regulations.
Consistent with the Department's regulatory philosophy that rules imposing the greatest costs on the public should be subject to heightened procedural requirements, this interim final rule incorporates the Department's enhanced procedures for economically significant and high-impact rulemakings. Consistent with section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, issued on Sept. 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), “economically significant” rulemakings are defined as those rules that may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. “High-impact” rulemakings would result in a total annualized cost to the U.S. economy of $500 million or more, or a total net loss of at least 250,000 full-time jobs in the United States over 5 years. These costly rulemakings may be subject to enhanced rulemaking procedures, such as formal hearings.
In addition to formalizing the process for petitions for rulemaking, the new procedures will explicitly allow members of the public to file petitions requesting that the Department conduct a retrospective regulatory review of existing regulations and guidance.
Executive Order 13891 defines the terms “guidance document” and “significant guidance document” and requires that agency regulations issued pursuant to that Executive order be consistent with the order and include—
(a) A requirement that each guidance document clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract;
(b) Procedures for the public to petition for the withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document; and
(c) For a significant guidance document, as determined by the Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA or Administrator), provisions requiring—
(1) A period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;
(2) Approval on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or by an agency component head appointed by the President, or by an official who is serving in an acting capacity as either of the foregoing roles before issuance;
(3) Review by OIRA under Executive Order 12866, before issuance; and
(4) Compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.
The interim final regulations address each of the requirements of Executive Order 13891, and incorporate policies described in OMB Memorandum M-20-02 (Memo M-20-02), issued on Oct. 31, 2019, which implements the order.
The Department published a notice in the
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on a proposed rule. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice and comment rulemaking for interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This rule is a procedural rule for which notice and comment rulemaking is not required. Nonetheless, the Department is issuing an interim final rule instead of a final rule to allow the members of the public to provide their input about the content of the rule. We anticipate issuing a final rule after reviewing and considering public comment, if any substantive public comments are received.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, if so, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
OMB has determined that this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, issued on Jan. 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339), for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment, or otherwise promulgates, that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2020, any new incremental costs associated with a significant regulatory action must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because this regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply.
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, issued on Jan. 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821), which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Section 1(c) of Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” OIRA has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these interim final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13771, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from the requirements of Executive Order 13891 and those we have determined are necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities, that is, additional public hearings, more comprehensive impact analyses, and more frequent retrospective reviews. These interim final regulations will benefit the public by—(1) providing increased transparency and more comprehensive analysis of each regulatory action; (2) ensuring that the public is subject to only those binding rules imposed through duly enacted statutes or through regulations lawfully promulgated to implement them; and (3) providing the public with fair notice of their obligations. The interim final regulations make clear that the Department will treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract, take public input into account in formulating significant guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public. The Department may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations, and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.
The potential costs associated with the interim final regulations are, at the most, minimal, while the potential benefits are significant. As explained below, there are no information collection requirements associated with these regulations under the
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these interim final regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the interim final regulations clearly stated?
• Are the implications and impacts of the interim final regulation clearly stated?
• Do the interim final regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the interim final regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the interim final regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, “§ 9.1 Purpose.”.)
• Could the description of the interim final regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the interim final regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these interim final regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the
Because notice-and-comment rulemaking is not necessary for this interim rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection instructions; respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.
The interim final regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary adds part 9 to title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.
This part sets forth policies and procedures governing the development and issuance of regulations and guidance documents by the Department of Education (Department). The regulations in this part are intended to ensure that the Department adheres to—
(a) Constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to Department rulemaking, including the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, referenced in § 9.2;
(b) Controlling Supreme Court decisions;
(c) Executive Orders 12866, 13771, 13777, and 13891, and any amendments thereto;
(d) All applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directives for rulemaking; and
(e) Best practices for rulemaking, including best practices for economic analyses and for appropriate outreach to interested parties throughout the rulemaking process.
(a) U.S. Const., including art. I sections 7, 8; art. II section 3. U.S. Const. amend. I and V.
(b) Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(l), 553, 556, 555, and 557, which prescribe general procedural requirements of law applicable to all Federal agencies regarding the formulation and issuance of regulations.
(c) Controlling Supreme Court decisions, including
(d) Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 3, 1993), which sets forth a regulatory philosophy and principles to which all Federal agencies should adhere, including requirements to regulate in the most cost-effective manner, to make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulations justify its costs, and to develop regulations that impose the least burden on society.
(e) Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” (Oct. 9, 2019), which provides direction to agencies on the use of guidance documents and directs them to publish regulations that set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.
(a) This part governs all Department employees and contractors involved with any phase of rulemaking or guidance at the Department.
(b) Unless otherwise required by statute, this part applies to all Department regulations, which include all rules of general applicability promulgated by the Department that affect the rights or obligations of persons outside the Department, including substantive rules, interpretive rules, and rules prescribing agency procedures and practice requirements applicable to outside parties. This part applies to all regulatory actions intended to lead to the promulgation of a rule and any other generally applicable directives, circulars, or pronouncements that are intended to have the force or effect of law or that are required by statute to satisfy the rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 or 556.
(c) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Any rulemaking in which a draft notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted to OMB before November 4, 2020.
(2) Rules addressed solely to internal agency management or personnel matters.
(3) Regulations related to Federal Government procurement and grants.
(4) Adjudications and investigations.
(5) Pleadings, briefs, and other filings in court or administrative proceedings.
The following policies govern the development and issuance of regulations at the Department:
(a) Statutory text, read plainly and construed according to its ordinary public meaning at the time of enactment, authoritatively prescribes both the Department's power to act and how it may act. In connection with rulemaking, the threshold question for the Department is whether Congress has directly authorized the proposed action, based on the principle that Congress knows to speak in plain terms when it wishes to enlarge agency authority and when it wishes to circumscribe it. If, after exhausting all traditional rules of construction, the Department fairly determines a given statute is ambiguous, then it may exercise its interpretative authority and engage in rulemaking, but only after—
(1) Determining Congress has expressly delegated definitional and interpretative regulatory authority with respect to a given statute or provision; or
(2)(i) Given the agency's general rulemaking authority in 410 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3) and section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) (20 U.S.C. 3474), determining Congress has impliedly delegated definitional and interpretative regulatory authority through,
(ii) Determining the interpretative issue presents no “major question” nor other circumstances supporting the inference that Congress did not intend the Department to decide the question.
(b) In considering whether to propose a regulation, policymakers at the Department will consider whether the specific problem to be addressed requires agency action, whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem and should be revised or eliminated, and whether there are any other reasonable alternatives that obviate the need for a new regulation.
(c) All regulations must be authorized by statute, consistent with the Constitution, and promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
(d) The Department must base the regulations on the best available evidence and data, and comply with all relevant laws, including the Information Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. 3516, note; the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, Public Law 115-435, 132 Stat. 5529; and OMB's “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (Feb. 22, 2002).
(e) The Department should write its regulations clearly and in plain language, consistent with Executive Order 13563.
(f) Regulations should minimize burdens where feasible. Where they impose burdens, the Department should narrowly tailor regulations to address the identified specific problem in a manner that maximizes net benefits.
(g) Unless required by law, the Department should issue regulations only when it expects their benefits to exceed their costs, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify.
(h) Once issued, the Department should periodically review and revise regulations and other agency actions to ensure that they remain net-beneficial and continue to meet the needs that they sought to address.
(i) Full public participation should be encouraged in rulemaking actions, primarily through engagement in public meetings, written comment, and, where required or otherwise appropriate, negotiated rulemaking.
(j) The process for issuing a rule must allow for proper consideration of the economic impact of the rule; thus, the promulgation of rules that are expected to impose greater economic costs should be accompanied by additional procedural protections and additional avenues for public participation.
(a) The Secretary of Education (Secretary) supervises the overall planning, direction, and control of the Department's Regulatory Agenda; approves regulatory documents for issuance and submission to OMB under Executive Order 12866; identifies an approximate regulatory budget for each fiscal year as required by Executive Order 13771; establishes the Department's Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF); and designates the members of the RRTF and the Department's Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) in accordance with Executive Order 13777.
(b) The RRO of the Department assists the Secretary in overseeing the overall planning, direction, and control of the Department's Regulatory Agenda and approves the initiation of regulatory action, as defined in Executive Order 12866, by the Department and its principals. The RRO also serves as the Chair of the Leadership Council of the RRTF.
(c) The RRO of the Department is delegated authority by the Secretary to oversee the implementation of the Department's regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure the effective implementation of regulatory reforms, consistent with Executive Order 13777 and applicable law. The RRO shall be responsible for ensuring the Department complies with this part, including but not limited to §§ 9.1 and 9.4, in all respects.
(d) The General Counsel of the Department is the chief legal officer of the Department, with final authority for providing legal assistance to the Secretary concerning the programs and policies of the Department and serves on the Leadership Council of the RRTF. The General Counsel shall closely assist the RRO in ensuring that the Department complies with this part, including but not limited to §§ 9.1 and 9.4, in all respects.
(e) The Department's Deputy General Counsel with responsibility for supervision of the Division of Regulatory Services (DRS) of the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is a member of the RRTF as designated by the Secretary, serves as the Department's Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) pursuant to section 6(a)(2) of Executive Order 12866, and chairs the RRTF Working Group.
(f) Except as otherwise agreed by senior agency officials due to exceptional circumstances, subject to the oversight of the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel with responsibility for supervision of DRS, the Department's Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services supervises DRS within OGC; oversees the process for rulemaking; provides legal advice on compliance with all APA and other administrative law requirements and with Executive orders, OMB directives, and other regulatory procedures; circulates regulatory documents for departmental review and seeks concurrence from reviewing officials; submits significant regulatory documents to the Secretary for approval before issuance or submission to OMB; coordinates with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB on OIRA's designation and review of regulatory documents and the preparation of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions; and serves as a member of the RRTF Working Group.
(g) DRS attorneys will serve as Regulatory Quality Officers designated by the Regulatory Reform Officer who will have responsibility for reviewing all rulemaking documents for plain language, technical soundness, compliance with the provisions of this part, and general quality.
(a)
(b)
(1) The Working Group coordinates with the RRO and the applicable offices within the Department (referred to as Principal Operating Components (POCs) in this part), reviews and develops recommendations for regulatory and deregulatory action, and presents recommendations to the Leadership Council.
(2) The Leadership Council reviews the Working Group's recommendations and advises the Secretary.
(c)
(i) The RPO, who will serve as Chair of the Working Group.
(ii) The Assistant General Counsel for DRS.
(iii) Other agency officials from POCs, as determined by the RRO.
(2) The Leadership Council comprises the following:
(i) The RRO, who serves as Chair.
(ii) The Department's General Counsel.
(iii) The Department's RPO.
(iv) The Department's Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD).
(v) Any additional senior agency officials as determined by the Secretary.
(d)
(1) Reviews each request for a new rulemaking action initiated by a POC.
(2) Considers each proposed or final regulation and regulatory policy question referred to it and makes a recommendation to the Secretary for its disposition.
(e)
(f)
(a) Before a POC may proceed to develop a significant proposed regulation (
(b) The Rulemaking Initiation Request should specifically state or describe—
(1) A proposed title for the rulemaking;
(2) The need for the regulation, including a description of any statutory mandate necessitating the rulemaking;
(3) The legal authority for the rulemaking;
(4) Whether the rulemaking is expected to be regulatory or deregulatory;
(5) Whether the rulemaking is expected to be significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866;
(6) Whether the final rule is expected to be an economically significant rule or a high-impact rule, as defined in § 9.10;
(7) A general description of the expected economic impact associated with the rulemaking, including whether the rulemaking is likely to generate benefits, impose costs, or generate cost savings;
(8) A description of any scientific, technical, economic, or other information or evidence relied on or needed to inform rulemaking;
(9) The tentative target dates for completing each stage of the rulemaking; and
(10) Whether there is a statutory or judicial deadline, or some other urgency, associated with the rulemaking.
(c) The POC submits the Rulemaking Initiation Request to the RPO and Assistant General Counsel for DRS, together with any other documents that may assist in the RRTF's consideration of the request.
(d) The RPO includes the Rulemaking Initiation Request on the agenda for consideration at the next Working Group meeting.
(e) The Working Group forwards the Rulemaking Initiation Request to the Leadership Council and provides the Leadership Council with a recommendation.
(f) The POC requests that DRS assign a Regulatory Information Number (RIN) to the rulemaking only upon the Leadership Council's (or RRO's) approval of the Rulemaking Initiation Request.
(g) Rulemaking Initiation Requests will be considered on a rolling basis; however, as applicable, DRS will establish deadlines for submission of Rulemaking Initiation Requests so that new rulemakings may be included in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
(a) The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) provides uniform reporting of data on regulatory and deregulatory activities under development throughout the Federal Government. The Department participates in the Unified Agenda.
(b) Fall editions of the Unified Agenda include the Regulatory Plan, which presents the Department's statement of regulatory priorities for the coming year. Fall editions also include the outcome and status of the Department's reviews of existing regulations, conducted in accordance with § 9.9(d).
(c) Each POC must—
(1) Carefully consider the principles contained in Executive Orders 12866, 13771, and 13777, and any Executive orders that supersede such orders, in the preparation of all submissions for the Unified Agenda;
(2) Ensure that all information pertaining to the Department's regulatory and deregulatory actions are accurately reflected in the Department's Unified Agenda submission;
(3) Timely submit all information to DRS in accordance with the deadlines and procedures communicated by that office; and
(4) Obtain the approval of the RRO to submit any new rulemaking as part of the Unified Agenda.
(d) Unless required to address an emergency or otherwise required by law or approved by the RRO and by OMB, no significant regulation may be issued if it was not included on the most recent version of the published Unified Agenda. Furthermore, no significant regulatory action may take effect until it has appeared in the Unified Agenda for at least 6 months prior to its issuance, unless good cause exists for an earlier effective date and action is otherwise approved by the RRTF or RRO.
(a)
(i) Have an annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(ii) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(iii) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(iv) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866.
(2)
(b)
(2) Each POC head must—
(i) Ensure that all of the POC's rulemaking documents are written in plain language, technically sound, and generally of high quality;
(ii) Ensure that the division within OGC that is responsible for providing the POC with legal advice reviews all rulemaking documents for legal support and legal sufficiency, including compliance with all applicable legal authorities, including but not limited to those listed in § 9.1; and
(iii) Approve the submission of all rulemaking documents, including any regulatory impact analysis, to DRS for submission for departmental clearance.
(3) DRS transmits the rulemaking documents to POCs for review and comments in one or more rounds of departmental clearance, as appropriate, for a review period determined by DRS based on the length, complexity, and urgency of the particular rulemaking documents.
(4) Reviewing offices should provide comments or otherwise concur on rulemaking documents within 10 calendar days or as otherwise determined by DRS based on such factors as the length, complexity, and urgency of the documents.
(5) After each round of clearance, DRS sends reviewing offices' comments to the proposing POC for resolution. The POC resolves any comments and submits a revised draft to DRS for another round of clearance or for the next step following the completion of departmental clearance as determined by DRS.
(6) Following the completion of departmental clearance, DRS prepares a rulemaking package to request the Secretary's approval for the rulemaking to be submitted to OMB for review or to the
(7) DRS notifies the POC and the RRO when the Secretary approves or disapproves the submission of the rulemaking to OMB or to the
(8) DRS is responsible for coordination with OIRA staff on OIRA's designation of all rulemaking documents, submission and clearance of all significant rulemaking documents, and all discussions or meetings with OMB concerning these documents. Generally, POCs must not schedule their own meetings with OMB without DRS and RRO involvement. Each POC should coordinate with DRS and the RRO before holding any discussions with OMB concerning regulatory policy or agreements to modify significant regulatory documents.
(c)
(2) A petition must—
(i) Be submitted to the Department through its docket designated for petitions on regulations.gov;
(ii) Contain the petitioner's name and contact information, including, at a minimum, an email address or mailing address;
(iii) Describe the nature of the request, and identify the rule at issue, including the specific text or substance of the rule;
(iv) Explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested, including, in the case of a petition for an exemption, the nature and extent of the relief sought and a description of the persons to be covered by the exemption; and
(v) Contain an adequate justification for the action sought.
(3)(i) Within 60 calendar days of the Department's receipt of the petition, the head of the POC with regulatory responsibility over the matter described in the petition, or their designee, must recommend whether to—
(A) Proceed with consideration of rulemaking, an exemption, or retrospective review; or
(B) Deny, in whole or in part, the petition.
(ii) The head of the POC, in consultation with the RRO and General Counsel, as needed, determines which petitions to deny. If the head of the POC determines that the petition contains adequate justification to issue, amend, or repeal a rule; to provide for a permanent or temporary exemption from any rule; or to perform a retrospective review of an existing rule, it refers the proposed action to the RRTF.
(4) After action by the RRTF, the POC responsible for the subject matter of the petition notifies the petitioner of any action on the petition. If the petition is denied, then the POC must provide an appropriately reasoned statement of the grounds for denial.
(d)
(2) The POC that issued the regulation will review it for the following:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(3) The results of each POC's review will be reported annually in the fall Unified Agenda.
(e)
(2) Rules include, at a minimum—
(i) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action (a regulatory impact analysis) or a reasoned determination that the expected economic impact is so minimal that a formal analysis of costs and benefits is not warranted; and
(ii) If the regulatory action is expected to impose costs, either a reasoned determination that the benefits outweigh the costs or, if the particular rulemaking is mandated by statute notwithstanding a negative cost-benefit assessment, a detailed discussion of the rationale supporting the specific regulatory action proposed and an explanation of why this approach maximizes net benefits.
(3) To the extent practicable, economic assessments will quantify the foreseeable annual economic costs and cost savings within the United States that would likely result from issuance of the rule and be conducted in accordance with section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4 (Regulatory Analysis), as specified by OMB in consultation with DRS. If the Office of Budget Service has estimated that the rule will likely impose economic costs on persons outside the United States, such costs should be reported separately.
(4) Deregulatory significant rulemakings will be evaluated for quantifiable as well as qualitative cost savings. If it is determined that quantification of cost savings is not possible or appropriate, then the proposing POC will provide a reasoned justification for the lack of quantification upon submission of the rulemaking to the Office of Budget Service.
(f)
(g)
(2)
(i) A statement of the time and place for submission of public comments and the time, place, and nature of any related public rulemaking proceedings;
(ii) Reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed and consistency with applicable authorities cited in § 9.1 and with the policy set forth in § 9.4;
(iii) The terms of the proposed rule;
(iv) A description of material information known to the POC on the subject of the proposed rule, including but not limited to—
(A) The considerations specified in § 9.7(b);
(B) For economically significant rules or documents over 100 pages, a summary of any regulatory impact analysis performed by the Department; and
(C) Information specifically identifying material data, studies, models, and other evidence or information considered or used by the Department in connection with its determination to propose the rule;
(v) A reasoned preliminary analysis of the need for the proposed rule based on the information described in the preamble to the NPRM, and an additional statement of whether a rule is required by statute;
(vi) A reasoned preliminary analysis indicating whether the expected benefits of the proposed rule will meet the relevant statutory objectives and will outweigh the estimated costs of the proposed rule, in accordance with any applicable requirements;
(vii) When possible, and especially if the rulemaking is significant, a summary discussion of the alternatives to the proposed rule considered by the POC, the relative costs and benefits of those alternatives, whether the alternatives would meet relevant statutory objectives, and why the POC chose not to propose or pursue the alternatives;
(viii) A statement of whether existing rules have created or contributed to the issue the Department seeks to address with the proposed rule and, if so, whether the Department proposes to amend or rescind any such rules and why; and
(ix) All other statements and analyses required by law, including, without limitation, the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
(3)
(ii) The proposing POC will determine the most reliable and relevant scientific, technical, and economic information reasonably available to the Department as a basis for the proposal, identify the sources and availability of such information, and affirm such information complies with all applicable quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity provisions of OMB's “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (Feb. 22, 2002) in the NPRM.
(h)
(2) The Department—in coordination with OMB under Executive Order 12866 for significant rulemakings—will ensure that the public is given an adequate period for comment, taking into account the scope, complexity, and nature of the issues and considerations involved in the proposed regulatory action.
(3) Unless a longer comment period is required by statute, absent special considerations and after individualized determinations, the comment period for nonsignificant regulatory actions generally should be at least 30 calendar days, and the comment period for significant regulatory actions should be at least 60 calendar days.
(i)
(i) Interpretive rules and rules addressing only Department organization, procedure, or practice;
(ii) Rules for which notice and comment are unnecessary to inform the rulemaking, such as rules correcting minor technical or clerical errors or rules that merely update regulations to include new or revised statutory language; and
(iii) Rules that require finalization without delay, such as rules to address an urgent need, and other rules for which it would be impracticable or contrary to the public interest to accommodate a period of public comment, provided the responsible POC finds that good cause exists to forgo public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
(2) Except when required by statute, issuing a substantive Department rule without completing notice and comment, including as an interim final rule (IFR) and direct final rule (DFR), must be the exception. In most cases in which a POC has issued an IFR, the responsible POC will proceed at the earliest opportunity to finalize the IFR.
(j)
(1) The preamble to the final rule will include—
(i) A concise, general statement of the rule's basis and purpose, including clear reference to the legal authority supporting the rule;
(ii) A reasoned determination by the adopting POC regarding each of the considerations required to be addressed in an NPRM under paragraph (g)(2) of this section;
(iii) A response to comments on the proposed rule;
(iv) If the final rule has changed in significant respects from the rule as proposed in the NPRM, an explanation of the changes and the reasons why the changes are needed or are more appropriate to advance the objectives identified in the rulemaking; and
(v) A reasoned discussion supporting a final determination that the information upon which the POC bases the rule complies with the Information Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. 3516, note, or any subsequent amendments thereto; the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, Public Law 115-435, 132 Stat. 5529; and OMB's “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies” (Feb. 22, 2002).
(2) All final rules issued by the Department will—
(i) Be written in plain language;
(ii) Be based on data and evidence to the extent possible;
(iii) Be based on a reasonable and well-founded interpretation of relevant statutory text; and
(iv) Not be unnecessarily inconsistent or incompatible with, or unnecessarily duplicative of, other Federal regulations.
(k)
(l)
(2) Before initiating a negotiated rulemaking not required by law, the POC considering the use of negotiated rulemaking should—
(i) Assess whether using negotiated rulemaking for the proposed rule is in the public interest, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 563(a), and present these findings to the Leadership Council;
(ii) Consult with DRS on the appropriateness of negotiated rulemaking; and
(iii) Receive the approval of the Leadership Council for the use of negotiated rulemaking.
(3) Unless otherwise approved by the General Counsel, all Department negotiated rulemakings should involve the assistance of at least one facilitator, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 561-567, commonly known as the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 566.
(4) Any charters, membership,
(a)
(2)
(i) A total annual cost on the U.S. economy (without regard to estimated benefits) of $500 million or more; or
(ii) A total net loss of at least 250,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. over the 5 years following the effective date of the rule (not counting any jobs relating to new regulatory compliance).
(b)
(2) Absent unusual circumstances and unless approved by the RRTF (in consultation with OMB), the comment period for an economically significant rule will be at least 60 calendar days and for a high-impact rule will be at least 90 calendar days. If a rule is determined to be an economically significant rule or a high-impact rule after the publication of the NPRM, the responsible POC will consider publishing notification in the
(c)
(2)
(i) The proposed rule depends on conclusions concerning one or more specific scientific, technical, economic, or other complex factual issues that are genuinely in dispute or that may not satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act;
(ii) The ordinary public comment process, including any additional procedures such as negotiated rulemaking, is unlikely to provide the POC with an adequate examination of the issues to permit a fully informed judgment on the dispute; and
(iii) The resolution of the disputed factual issues would likely have a material effect on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule or on whether the proposed rule would achieve the statutory purpose.
(3)
(i) The requested hearing would not advance the consideration of the proposed rule and the responsible POC's ability to make the rulemaking determinations required under this part; or
(ii) The hearing would unreasonably delay completion of the rulemaking in light of a compelling need or a statutory mandate for prompt regulatory action.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(A) Terminate the rulemaking;
(B) Proceed with the rulemaking as proposed; or
(C) Modify the proposed rule.
(ii) If the decision is made to terminate the rulemaking, the responsible POC will publish notification in the
(iii) If the decision is made to finalize the proposed rule without material modifications, the responsible POC will explain the reasons for its decision and its responses to the hearing record in the preamble to the final rule, in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
(iv) If the decision is made to modify the proposed rule in a manner that is not a logical outgrowth of the NPRM, the responsible POC will, subject to the approval of the RRTF (in consultation with OMB), publish a new or supplemental NPRM in the
(8)
(d)
(i) A discussion explaining the POC's reasoned final determination that the rule as adopted is necessary to achieve the objective identified in the NPRM in light of the full administrative record and does not deviate from the metrics previously identified by the POC for measuring progress toward that objective; and
(ii) In accordance with paragraph (c)(7)(iii) of this section, the POC's responses to and analysis of the record of any formal hearing held under paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) Absent exceptional circumstances and unless approved by the Secretary or the Leadership Council (in consultation with OMB), the POC will adopt as a final economically significant rule or final high-impact rule the regulatory alternative that maximizes net benefits and achieves the relevant objectives.
(e)
(1) An assessment of the impacts, including any costs, of the rule on regulated entities;
(2) A determination of how the actual costs and benefits of the rule have varied from those anticipated when the rule was issued; and
(3) An assessment of the effectiveness, benefits, and unintended consequences of the rule in producing the regulatory objectives it was adopted to achieve.
(f)
(a)
(2) If, after the close of the comment period for the proposed rule, the Department receives a comment from the public that provides information that was not available prior to the deadline for submitting public comments concerning the proposed rule and that forms the basis of a critical decision in the final rule (such as newly available, reliable studies or data), the Department should reopen the comment period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the newly available information, unless the new information merely reinforces the information from the proposed rule or previously available in the public docket. If the new information is likely to result in a change to the rule that is not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, the POC must issue a supplemental NPRM to ensure that the final rule represents a logical outgrowth of the Department's proposal.
(b)
(2) The responsible POC and DRS will determine who will participate in the meeting. Participation may occur by phone, by videoconference, or in person. These OMB meetings are listening sessions for the Department.
(3) The attending Department personnel should refrain from debating particular points regarding the rulemaking and should avoid disclosing the contents of a document or proposed regulatory action that has not yet been disclosed to the public, but may answer questions of fact regarding a public document.
Guidance documents and significant guidance documents do not have the force or effect of law on parties outside the Department, and it is the policy of the Department to disfavor them except in special circumstances.
(a)
(1) Rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 or similar statutory provisions.
(2) Rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(a).
(3) Rules of Department organization, procedure, or practice, provided such rules do not alter substantive obligations for parties outside the Department.
(4) Decisions of Department adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 or similar statutory provisions.
(5) Internal guidance directed to the Department or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties.
(6) Internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.
(7) Legal briefs, other court filings, or positions taken in litigation or determinations in enforcement actions.
(8) Agency statements that do not set forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, such as those speeches, editorials, media interviews, press materials, or congressional testimonies that do not set forth for the first time a new policy.
(9) Agency statements of specific, rather than general, applicability. This includes responses or information provided by a POC designed to answer specific questions from a grant recipient or other stakeholder; advisory opinions directed to particular parties about circumstance-specific questions; notices regarding particular locations or facilities; and correspondence with individual persons or entities, including congressional correspondence or notices of violation. A document, including correspondence, directed to a particular party that provides an agency interpretation of statutes, regulations, or
(10) Grant solicitations and awards, including instructions related to the submission of applications or State Plans for formula and discretionary grant programs and award amendments.
(11) Contract solicitations and awards, contracts, and memoranda of understanding.
(12) Categories of documents that the OMB Administrator (Administrator) identifies as excepted from the requirements of Executive Order 13891.
(13) Documents prepared in connection with or responding to audits or other engagements conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and to oversight by congressional committees.
(b) Each guidance document will, at a minimum—
(1) Include the term “guidance”;
(2) Identify that it is issued by the Department or a component of the Department;
(3) Identify the activities and entities to which, and the persons to whom, the document applies;
(4) Include the date of issuance;
(5) Note if it is a revision to a previously issued guidance document and, if so, identify the guidance document that it revises;
(6) Provide the title of the guidance;
(7) Have a unique document identification number;
(8) Include the citation to the statutory provision or regulation to which it applies or that it interprets;
(9) Include a short summary of the subject matter covered in the guidance document at the top of the document as appropriate; and
(10) Include the following disclaimer, prominently displayed:
(c) All guidance documents require review, clearance, and written authorization by the General Counsel of the Department or his or her designee. To obtain such authorization, the POC must demonstrate the following:
(1) A compelling operational need to issue the guidance document; and
(2) The guidance document complies with OMB's “Final Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance” (Jan. 25, 2007) and Executive Order 13891.
(d) The General Counsel will consult with the RRO prior to clearing significant guidance documents.
(e) All active guidance documents will be accessible through the Department's guidance portal. Documents that are not available through this portal are not considered to be in effect (and may only be used for historical purposes).
(a)
(1) Lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel, legal, or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles of Executive Order 12866.
(b) Before a POC may proceed to develop a significant guidance document, the POC head must consult with DRS and consider the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 13891 and the policies set forth in §§ 9.4 and 9.12. If the POC head determines that a significant guidance document is warranted, consistent with those policies and principles, the POC may prepare a Significant Guidance Document Initiation Request to the Working Group of the RRTF.
(c) The Significant Guidance Document Initiation Request should specifically state or describe—
(1) A proposed title for the document;
(2) The need for the document, including a description of the relevant statutes and regulations;
(3) The legal authority for the document;
(4) A description of the economic impact associated with the document;
(5) The tentative target date for completion of the significant guidance document; and
(6) Whether there is a statutory or judicial deadline, or some other urgency, associated with the significant guidance document.
(d) The POC head submits the Significant Guidance Document Initiation Request to the Assistant General Counsel for DRS and the RPO, together with any other documents that may assist in the RRTF's consideration of the request.
(e) DRS includes the Significant Guidance Document Initiation Request on the agenda for consideration at the next RRTF Working Group meeting.
(f) The Working Group forwards the Significant Guidance Document Initiation Request to the Leadership Council and provides the Leadership Council with a recommendation.
(g) The Department will seek significance determinations from OIRA for certain guidance documents, as appropriate, in the same manner as for rulemakings. Prior to publishing these guidance documents, and with sufficient time to allow OIRA to review the document in the event that a significance determination is made, Department should provide OIRA with an opportunity to review the designation request or the guidance document, if requested, to determine if it meets the definition of “significant” or “economically significant” under Executive Order 13891.
(h) Unless the Department and the Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exemption from some or all requirements, upon approval of the Leadership Council, the Department will issue the significant guidance document only after completing the following requirements:
(1) A period of public notice and comment of at least 30 calendar days before issuance of the final significant guidance document, and a public response from the Department to significant comments, except when the Department, for good cause, finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of the reasons into the significant guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, according to the same standards applicable to agency rules under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
(2) Approval by the Secretary and signature by the Secretary or the component head or by an official who is serving in an acting capacity as either of the foregoing before issuance.
(3) Review by OMB under Executive Order 12866.
(4) Compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, and 13777, and any Executive orders that supersede such orders, for such time as they are in effect.
(a) Members of the public may request the withdrawal or modification of an existing guidance document or significant guidance document in the manner indicated on the Department's guidance portal at
(b) The Department will respond to all requests in a timely manner, but no later than 90 calendar days after receipt of the request, to the extent practicable.
(a) To rescind a significant guidance document, the Department will—
(1) In consultation with OIRA, provide a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 calendar days with respect to the rescission, unless the rescission reflects statutory or regulatory changes or some other reason that does not involve an independent exercise of the Department's policy-making discretion;
(2) Submit the proposed rescission to OMB for review; and
(3) Publish a notice in the
(b) The Department and its components may not cite, use, or rely on rescinded guidance documents or rescinded significant guidance documents, except to establish historical facts.
This part will be reviewed periodically to reflect improvements in the rulemaking process or changes in Administration policy. If Congress revises applicable laws or if the executive branch issues new Executive orders, Presidential memoranda, guidance, or implementing instructions governing Federal agency rulemaking, those changes will also be part of this review.
This part is intended to improve the internal management of the Department. It is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States; its agencies or other entities, officers, or employees; or any other person. In addition, this part shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance with this part by the Department, its POCs, its officers or employees, or any other person.
Department of Education.
Final rule; incorporation by reference.
The Secretary is issuing this rule in order to update the versions of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook and What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook incorporated by reference into the Department's applicable regulations.
Jonathan Jacobson, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, PCP-4158, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 245-7485. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In these final regulations, we update relevant provisions of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations to include the current versions of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards Handbook and What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook (the Handbooks). We also incorporate these Handbooks, which provide a detailed description of the standards and procedures of the WWC, by reference. The Handbooks are available to interested parties at
The WWC is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education's (the Department's) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Title I of Pub. L. 107-279). The WWC is an important part of the Department's strategy to use rigorous and relevant research, evaluation, and statistics to inform decisions in the field of education. The WWC provides critical assessments of scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs, policies, products, and practices (referred to as “interventions”) and a range of publications and tools summarizing this evidence. The WWC meets the need for credible, succinct information by reviewing research studies; assessing the quality of the
In addition, we make other minor, technical updates to 34 CFR 77.1, to correct numbering and cross-references.
This update will help ensure that future evidence reviews reflect the most recent standards and procedures used elsewhere by the WWC. Improvements included in the Version 4.0 and Version 4.1 WWC Handbooks are described at
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
The APA also generally requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Again, because these final regulations are merely technical, there is good cause to make them effective on the day they are published. However, these technical changes will only apply to competitions announced on or after the date of the publication of this final rule.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2020, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. Because the proposed regulatory action is not significant, the requirements of Executive Order 13771 do not apply. Moreover, even if this were a significant regulatory action, Executive Order 13771 would not apply because it is a “transfer rule,”
We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as
We are issuing these final regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, the Department believes that these final regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that these regulations would not impose additional costs. We believe any additional costs imposed by these final regulations will be negligible, primarily because they reflect technical changes that do not impose additional burden on those submitting evidence for the Department to assess. Updating definitions in 34 CFR 77.1(c) to allow WWC reviews and reports reviewed under Versions 4.0 or 4.1 standards will expand the body of WWC-reviewed evidence available to inform decision-makers. Evidence previously reviewed and reported by the WWC under Version 2.1 or Version 3.0 standards may still satisfy the requirements of strong or moderate evidence, provided all other aspects of those definitions are addressed. When the Department must review evidence that has not previously been rated by the WWC, using the most up-to-date WWC standards and recently trained and certified WWC reviewers will increase the integrity of the review process. We believe any costs will be significantly outweighed by the potential benefits of making necessary updates and ensuring that regulated parties are aware of and may refer to the current versions of the Handbooks.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking because there is good cause to waive notice and comment under the APA.
These regulations do not contain any information collection requirements.
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Education, Grant programs-education, Incorporation by reference.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends part 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * * For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
(b) Institute of Education Sciences, 550 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20202, (202) 245-6940,
(1) What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.1, January 2020, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(2) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook, Version 4.1, January 2020, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(3) What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.0, October 2017, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(4) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0, October 2017, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(5) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0, March 2014, IBR approved for § 77.1.
(6) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 2.1, September 2011, IBR approved for § 77.1.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is issuing a technical amendment to the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). This technical amendment updates the GSAR and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect changes to clause renumbering that were erroneously omitted from GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting (Administrative Changes), which was published in the
Mr. Alexander Beyrent, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, at
This is a technical amendment to the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). As part of GSA's regulatory reform efforts, GSA has been performing a comprehensive review of the requirements in the GSAR and has identified several instances where clause numbers need to be amended.
Title 40 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 121 authorizes GSA to issue regulations, including the GSAR, to control the relationship between GSA and contractors.
Clause numbers are amended within the following GSAR sections: 515.408 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses; 538.272 MAS price reductions;
Government procurement.
Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 515, 538, and 552 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification; quota transfers.
NMFS announces that the states of Maine and New Jersey are transferring a portion of their 2020 commercial bluefish quota to the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina, respectively. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial bluefish quotas for Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
Effective October 2, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
Laura Hansen, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9225.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2020 allocations were published on June 29, 2020 (85 FR 38794).
The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) published in the
Maine is transferring 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) of bluefish commercial quota to Rhode Island and New Jersey is transferring 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) to North Carolina through mutual agreement of the states. These transfers were requested to ensure that Rhode Island and North Carolina would not exceed their 2020 state quotas. The revised bluefish quotas for 2020 are: Maine, 3,496 lb (1,586 kg); Rhode Island, 298,366 lb (135,337 kg); New Jersey, 264,934 lb (120,172 kg); and, North Carolina, 937,058 lb (425,042 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2020 total allowable catch of Pacific cod allocated to catcher/processors
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 1, 2020, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2020.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2020 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod allocated to catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 158 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2020 TAC of Pacific cod allocated to catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that Pacific cod caught by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(a)(2).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting the retention of Pacific cod by catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 29, 2020.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2020-21 and subsequent production years. The proposed assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by November 19, 2020.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or Terry Vawter, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559)538-1670 or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Part 983 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of pistachios operating within the production area, and a public member.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, pistachio handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable pistachios for the 2020-21 production year and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate from $0.00010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios, the rate that was established for the 2017-18 and subsequent production years, to $0.00015 per pound of assessed weight pistachios for the 2020-21 and subsequent production years.
The Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2017-18 and subsequent production years, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $0.00010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. That assessment rate continues in effect from production year to production year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on July 14, 2020, and unanimously recommended expenditures of $679,800 and an assessment rate of $0.00015 per pound of assessed weight pistachios handled for the 2020-21 and subsequent production years. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $677,100. The proposed assessment rate of $0.00015 is $0.00005 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income, along with California Pistachio Research Board (CPRB) management income and reserve funds, to cover all of the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2020-21 production year. Funds in the reserve are expected to be approximately $197,585 at the end of the 2020-21 production year, which is within the Order's requirement of carry-over no more than approximately two production years' budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2020-21 production year include $74,800 for various administrative expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, $346,500 for salaries and related employee expenses, $125,000 for research, and $80,000 for a contingency fund. Budgeted expenses for these items for the 2019-20 production year were $48,900 for various administrative expenses, $10,000 for compliance expenses, $336,500 for salaries and related employee expenses, $125,000 for research, and $80,000 for a contingency fund.
The Committee derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses, an estimated crop of 950 million pounds of assessed weight pistachios, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, calculated at $142,500 (950,000,000 pounds assessed weight pistachios multiplied by $0.00015 assessment rate), along with CPRB management income ($175,200), and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve ($559,685), would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses of $679,800. Funds in the reserve are estimated to be $197,585 at the end of the 2020-21 production year ($142,500 plus $175,200 plus $559,685 minus $679,800 equals $197,585).
The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each production year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2020-21 production year budget, and those for subsequent production years, would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 21 handlers subject to the regulation under the Order, and approximately 1,501 producers of pistachios in the production area. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $1,000,000, and small agricultural service firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the national average producer price for pistachios for the 2018 production year was $2.65 per pound. Committee data indicates 2018-19 pistachio total production was 746,858,150 pounds. The total 2018 value of the pistachio crop was $1,979,174,098 (746,858,150 pounds times $2.65 per pound equals $1,979,174,098). Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of producers (1,501) yields an estimated average receipt per producer of $1,318,570 which is above the SBA threshold for small producers.
According to USDA Market News data, the reported terminal price for 2018 for pistachios ranged between $155.00 to $165.00 per 25-pound carton. The average of this range is $160.00 ($155.00 plus $165.00 divided by 2 equals $160.00). Dividing the average value by the 25-pound carton yields an estimated average price per pound of $6.40 ($160.00 average value for 25-pound carton divided by 25). Multiplying the 2018-19 pistachio total production of 746,858,150 pounds by the estimated average price per pound of $6.40 equals $4,779,892,160.
Dividing this figure by 21 regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of $227,613,912, which is above the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, using the above data, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of pistachios may be classified as large entities.
The proposed assessment rate of $0.00015 that the committee approved complies with section 983.71(b) of the Order which states that any proposed assessment rate must not exceed one-half of one percent of the average price received by producers in the preceding production year. The average price received by producers in the preceding production year was $2.65 per pound of pistachios. Thus, $2.65 times 0.5 percent equals $0.01325, which is greater than the assessment rate increase of $0.00015.
This proposal would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2020-21 and subsequent production years from $0.00010 to $0.00015 per pound assessed weight pistachios. The Committee unanimously recommended 2020-21 expenditures of $679,800 and an assessment rate of $0.00015 per pound assessed weight pistachios. The proposed assessment rate of $0.00015 per pound assessed weight pistachios is $0.00005 higher than the current rate. The volume of assessable pistachios for the 2020-21 production year is estimated to be 950 million pounds. Thus, the $0.00015 per pound assessed weight pistachios should provide $142,500 in assessment income (950,000,000 multiplied by $0.00015). Income derived from handler assessments, along with CPRB management income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2020-21 production year.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2020-21 production year include $74,800 for various administrative expenses, $10,000 for compliance
In recent years, the Committee has utilized reserve funds to partially fund its budgeted expenditures. The Committee recommended increasing the assessment rate to provide adequate income to cover the Committee's budgeted expenses for the 2020-21 production year while maintaining its financial reserve. This action would maintain the Committee's reserve balance at a level that the Committee believes is appropriate and meets the requirements of the Order.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate recommendation, the Committee discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.00010 per pound assessed weight pistachios, and increasing the assessment rate by a different amount. However, the Committee determined that the recommended assessment rate would fully fund budgeted expenses and avoid drawing down reserves at an unsustainable rate.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 14, 2020, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pistachio handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 45-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
Marketing agreements, Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 983 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after September 1, 2020, an assessment rate of $0.00015 per pound is established for California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
AMS solicits comments on proposed amendments to the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order). These amendments would require market agencies (
Comments must be received by December 4, 2020. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden must be received by December 4, 2020.
Comments should be posted online at
Jason Julian, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Livestock and Poultry Program, AMS, USDA; telephone: (202)
Under the Order, which became effective April 11, 2002, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion activities designed to strengthen the position of, and to develop and expand the markets for, ovine animals and ovine products. The program is financed by producers, feeders, and seedstock producers (
The Order currently mandates that assessments be collected from producers for the sale of live lambs, and that the assessment be forwarded to the subsequent purchaser(s) until remitted by a first handler or exporter. That first handler is responsible for submitting both the producer's assessment and the first handler's assessment and report to the Board. The collection process is known as a “pass-through” assessment. Since the initial Order was established, industry markets have evolved; non-traditional first handlers, such as ethnic processors (butcher shops) and farmer's market processors now participate to a larger degree in the purchasing and processing of lamb and lamb products. However, based on information about lamb sales from market agencies, the Board believes many non-traditional first handlers are not remitting assessments, as required by the Order. The Board, in turn, is not capturing all assessments paid by producers and feeders. Over the years, Board staff has worked to collect the owed lamb assessments from the non-traditional buyers, with limited success.
On January 23, 2019, the Board approved a motion to request the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) amend the assessment collection procedures and update corresponding sections of the Order. Proposed revisions to the assessment collection procedures would require market agencies to collect the full assessment, including the first handler assessment portion, for remittance to the Board. The assessment collection change would only impact lambs sold through market agencies. Other modes of sale, such as traditional markets (
Under the proposed rule, existing procedures in
•
The amended collection process is estimated to generate approximately $500,000 in new revenue, approximately 20 percent of the Board's annual budget, based on 2019 production levels. The Board's budget is based on the amount of assessments collected on an annual basis, voluntary contributions, and revenue derived from the investment of funds.
This proposed rule would also add a definition for
The Act provides for the creation of, and amendments to, the Order. The Order provides in § 1280.210 that the Board shall have the powers and duties to recommend to the Secretary such amendments to the Order as the Board considers appropriate.
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.101 to consolidate definitions listed in § 1280.101 through § 1280.129
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.217(a) to reflect the current assessment rate of seven-tenths of a cent ($.007) per pound of live lambs sold. This would correct the reference to an obsolete assessment rate. The proposed rule would also incorporate the last three sentences from current § 1280.217(e) into § 1280.217(a), maintaining the right of the Board to raise or lower the assessment rate. Section 1280.217(e) would be removed.
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.217(c) to reflect the current first handler assessment rate and make a conforming change to reflect the elimination of § 1280.217(e). Additionally, a reference in § 1280.217(c) to the assessment rate in § 1280.217(e) would be revised to reference the assessment rate in corrected § 1280.217(a).
The proposed rule would amend section § 1280.217(d) to require market agencies to collect and remit the producer, seedstock producer, feeder, or first handler assessments to the Board. Additionally, § 1280.217(d), would provide that lamb feeder farms who pay assessments twice may request a refund by completing the Lamb Assessment Refund Form (Form LP-85) and submitting it to the Board. The proposed rule would remove § 1280.217(g), as it is no longer applicable, and make conforming changes. Additionally, the proposed rule would redesignate § 1280.217(f) as § 1280.217(e); and § 1280.217(h) as § 1280.217(f).
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.218 to reference the assessment rate established in § 1280.217(a). The proposed rule would amend § 1280.218 to change assessment due dates from time of export to the 15th day of the month following the month in which the lambs were purchased for slaughter and export or live export. This aligns with the current process for the collection of assessments listed in § 1280.220.
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.220(a) to provide that market agencies, as well as first handlers and exporters, are responsible for collecting and remitting assessments to the Board.
The proposed rule would make a conforming change to § 1280.402(b) to require market agencies to collect and remit assessments to the Board, to reflect the revision in § 1280.217(d).
The proposed rule would amend § 1280.402(e)(1) by removing, “. . . if a first handler markets lambs or lamb products directly to consumers, in order to avoid late payment charges.” This phrase, which is not applicable here, was placed in this section inadvertently and should be removed.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the E.O. of January 30, 2017, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (February 2, 2017).
This proposal has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have a retroactive effect. Section 524 of the Commodity, Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments or significant Tribal implications.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Due to a lack of resources and the time it would take to determine assessment compliance, the Board recommended a change to the collection and remittance process for market agencies. If the proposed rule is implemented, the Board would reduce staff travel expenses and time spent performing onsite audits to determine assessment compliance. The proposal could increase the Board's revenue by approximately $500,000 per fiscal year, or 20 percent of the Board's annual revenue (based on 2019 budgetary numbers).
The proposed rule would not increase the assessment rates under the Order. No new economic burden would be placed on producers, feeders, seedstock producers, or first handlers for sales that take place outside of market agencies, as that process for paying assessments would not change.
The proposed rule would require market agencies to report and collect
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for sheep farms is 112410. The Small Business Association (SBA) size classification for this industry limits the number of employees for a small business to 100 people. Based on industry response, almost all lamb farms employ fewer than 100 people; in fact, almost all lamb farms employ less than 15 people. The vast majority of lamb farms are considered small businesses.
According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture (AC-17-A-51), there were 60,675 farms that sold sheep and lambs. This number includes sheep and lambs raised for dairy, wool and meat. This proposed rule focuses only on those lambs raised for meat. The census does not break down the data to the level of lamb feeder farms. Therefore, AMS has worked with industry stakeholders to understand the makeup of the industry. According to lamb industry estimates, of those 60,675 farms, 500 farms are considered feeder farms that raise lambs for meat. Additionally, the lamb industry estimates that of those 500 feeder farms, approximately 10 percent, or 50 of those feeder farms, could potentially purchase/sell their lambs at market agencies. The remainder of the feeder farms sell lambs directly to a first handler. Therefore, the number of feeder farms that raise lambs for meat that would be financially impacted by the proposal would not be considered substantial.
Under the proposed rule, a lamb feeder farm could potentially pay assessments twice in scenarios 4 and 5 described above and would be required to fill out a refund form after selling the lambs through a market agency to recoup the twice-paid assessment. This paperwork burden is described in detail in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this proposed rule. AMS seeks comments on whether the limited data available is representative of industry lamb numbers and what alternative data sources, if any, are available to further refine this analysis.
The proposed rule would place a new burden on market agencies to collect and remit assessments for the sale of lambs. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for marketing agencies is 424520. Firms in the 424-sector classification are defined as large or small depending on the number of employees rather than sales values. The Small Business Association (SBA) size classification for this industry, limits the number of employees for a small business to 100.
Data on employee numbers for this industry is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. The most recent available data to determine the size of firms in the industry is from the 2012 Economic Census. According to the data, the vast majority of the firms (666 of 668 total firms) are small businesses. According to industry, of the 666 existing firms, approximately 300 market agencies that sell lambs would be impacted by this proposed rule. Currently, 50 full-time market agencies are voluntarily collecting and remitting producer assessments to the Board; however, they are not collecting and remitting first handler assessments. Additionally, 250 seasonal market agencies are not collecting and remitting either of the assessments to the Board.
The Board provided AMS an estimate that all 50 full-time market agencies currently utilize computer software in their information collection and billing processes. Therefore, implementation costs would consist of upgrades to each respondent's existing computer software system and hands-on training to amend the collection and remittance process, at an estimated cost of $500.00 per respondent. Additionally, the Board has provided an estimate to AMS that a large majority of the 250 seasonal market agencies currently perform their information collection and billing process utilizing computer software programs. Due to seasonal sales and low sheep volume sales per respondent, AMS anticipates that the seasonal markets would be able to utilize existing computer software systems or existing hard-copy tracking procedures for the new collection and remittance process. If this proposed rule is implemented, the Board would perform educational outreach to the seasonal market agencies to educate them on the new collection and remittance process. The outreach efforts would consist of mailed educational materials and training webinars to limit the burden on auction managers to train personnel, which is estimated will cost $5.00 per respondent. Once the computer software is installed and the outreach efforts have been completed, the physical submission of the assessments to the Board would be the only burden on market agencies, which would be considered a minor burden. AMS has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined that this proposed rule, while imposing new administrative burdens on market agencies and some feeder farms would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Order has been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, subchapter I).
The existing form (LP-81) would be amended to require data for the total lambs sold/slaughtered, to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and its use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. The Board would supply such information for data processing software and/or technical expertise to train market agency staff on how to complete the information collection and remittance process. The lamb information collection and remittance form would be simple, easy to understand, and would place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information.
The timing and frequency of collecting the proposed information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information that would be included on this form is not available from other sources because such information relates specifically to individual market agencies who are reporting information subject to the provisions of the Act. There is no practical method for collecting the required information without the use of these forms.
The Order authorizes the collection of assessments from lamb producers, feeders, seedstock producers, and first
The design of this form has been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize information already submitted under other lamb programs administered by the USDA. The form would be available through the Board or USDA. The information collection would be used only by authorized Board employees and representatives of USDA, including AMS staff.
The request for approval of the amended information collection is as follows:
(1) Form LP-81, Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Board Remittance Report form.
The total annual estimated cost for market agencies in providing the information to the Board is $125,150 (Increase in response total 850 × $18.27 = $15,529.50; grand total is 6,850 × $18.27 = $125,149.50). This total has been estimated by multiplying 850 total burden hours by $18.27, the estimated wage rate of respondents. AMS used the hourly wage of farmworkers, farm, ranch, and aquaculture animals as obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, published May 2018. This publication can be found at the following website:
The average hourly wage rate of $13.87 with an additional 31.7 percent to account for benefits and compensations, for an hourly wage of $18.27, was used to calculate annual cost. Costs of benefits and compensation guidance were provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release issued December 14, 2018.
To offset startup costs associated with the new collection and remittance process, the Board would allocate approximately $500.00 per full-time market agency respondent to upgrade their computer software programs and to provide staff training for the new collection and remittance procedures (50 full-time market agencies × $500.00 = $25,000). Additionally, the Board would provide educational training materials and would host training webinars with seasonal market agency staff on the new collection and remittance process. The Board would allocate approximately $5.00 for the educational materials and webinar training costs per seasonal market agency respondent (250 seasonal market agencies × $5.00 = $1,250.00).
Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology.
The proposed rule also announces that AMS is seeking approval for a new information collection and recordkeeping requirement that would be imposed under the Order. The new information collection has been submitted to OMB for approval.
The proposed “Lamb Feeder Checkoff Refund” form would require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and its use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out reports and requesting a refund from the Board. The form would be simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person required to file the information.
The timing and frequency of collecting information are intended to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to fill out the required reports. In addition, the information to be included on this form is not available from other sources because such information relates specifically to individual market agencies who are subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, there is no practical method for collecting the required information without the use of these forms.
The Order authorizes the collection of assessments from lamb producers, feeders, seedstock producers, and first handlers. Under this proposed rule, market agencies would be required to collect and remit assessments for the purchase and sale of lambs, while the collection and remittance process would remain unchanged when sales occur independent of market agencies. This proposal would require assessment-related records to be retained for at least two years beyond the fiscal year of their applicability. This is consistent with the current recordkeeping requirements of the program. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture (AC-17-A-51), there were 60,675 farms that sold lambs. The census does not breakdown the data to the level of feeder farms. Therefore, AMS has worked with industry to understand the makeup of the industry. Of those farms, the lamb industry estimated that 500 are considered feeder farms. Additionally, the lamb industry estimates that of those 500 feeder farms, approximately 10 percent, or 50, of those feeder farms purchase or sell lambs at market agencies. The estimated time for each respondent to complete the Lamb Feeder Checkoff Refund Form is 15 minutes. The estimated total hours for all respondents to complete the form is 90 hours (
Based on the average hourly wage rate of $13.87 with an additional 31.7 percent to account for benefits and compensations, for an hourly wage of $18.27 was used to calculate annual cost. Costs of benefits and compensation guidance was provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release issued December 14, 2018.
The design of this form has been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize information already submitted under other lamb program administered by the USDA. The form would be available through the Board or USDA. The information collection would be used only by authorized Board employees and representatives of USDA, including AMS staff.
The request for approval of the new information collection is as follows:
(2) Form LP-85, Lamb Feeder Checkoff Refund Form.
Comments: The period to submit comments on both the revised and the new information collection burden is 60 days. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1280 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(a) Consumer information, which means any action taken to provide information to, and broaden the understanding of, the general public regarding the consumption, use, and nutritional attributes of lamb and lamb products; and
(b) Industry information, which means information and programs that will lead to the development of new markets, new marketing strategies, or increased efficiency for the lamb industry, and activities to enhance the image of lamb.
The revisions to read as follows:
(a) Except as prescribed by regulations approved by the Secretary, each first handler or exporter making payment to a producer, seedstock producer, or feeder for lambs purchased from such producer, seedstock producer, or feeder shall collect an assessment from the producer, seedstock producer, or feeder. Each producer, seedstock producer, or feeder shall pay such assessment to the first handler or exporter, at the rate of seven-tenths of a cent ($.007) per pound of live lambs sold. The rate of assessment may be raised or lowered no more than twenty-hundredths of a cent ($0.002) in any one year. The Board may recommend any change in the assessment rate to the Department. Prior to a change in the assessment rate, the Department will provide notice by publishing in the
(b) * * *
(c) Each person processing or causing to be processed lambs or lamb products of that person's own production and marketing such lambs or lamb products, shall pay an assessment on such lambs or lamb products on the live weight of the lamb at the time of slaughter at the rate established in paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, pursuant to § 1280.108, such an individual is considered a first handler and is required by § 1280.219 to pay an additional assessment of $0.42 per head. As the first handler, the individual must remit the total amount of assessments to the Board.
(d) A market agency shall collect an assessment from the producer, seedstock producer, feeder, or first handler and remit the collected assessment to the Board. Any person who pays more than one assessment on the same lamb may be eligible for a refund by submitting a request on a form provided by the Board.
(e) The collection of assessments pursuant to § 1280.217, § 1280.218, and § 1280.219 shall begin with respect to lambs purchased, or lambs or lamb products marketed on or after the effective date established by the Secretary and shall continue until terminated or suspended by the Secretary.
(f) Payment remitted pursuant to this subpart shall be in the form of a negotiable instrument made payable to the Board. Such remittances and the reports specified in § 1280.223 and § 1280.225 shall be mailed to the location designated by the Board.
Each person exporting live lambs or lamb products, including an exporter directly exporting his or her own lambs or lamb products, shall remit to the Board an assessment at the rate established in § 1280.217(a) by the 15th day of the month following the month in which the live lambs were purchased for slaughter and export or live export.
(a) Each first handler, market agency, and exporter responsible for the collection of assessments under this subpart shall remit assessments to the Board by the 15th day of the month following the month in which the lambs were purchased for slaughter or export.
(a) * * *
(b)
(c) * * *
(d) * * *
(e) Remittance of assessments. (1) Assessments shall be remitted to the Lamb Promotion, Research, and Information Program, c/o the Secretary at USDA, 23029 Network Place, Chicago, Illinois 60673-1230, with a “Monthly Remittance Report” form not later than the 15th day of the following month in which lambs or lamb products were purchased for slaughter or export, or marketed.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by evidence that a revised structural life limit of some components of the nose landing gear (NLG) and/or main landing gear (MLG) was not implemented during repair. This proposed AD would require verifying that the affected components are installed on the airplane, revising the structural life limits in the structural deviation inspection requirements (SDIR) airplane document, and replacing affected components if necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 19, 2020.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec, Canada, J7N 1E1; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7330; fax 516-794-5531; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person identified in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-09, dated April 7, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This proposed AD was prompted by evidence that some components of the NLG and/or MLG were repaired using Bombardier Repair Engineering Orders (REOs) that resulted in a specific airworthiness limitation (SAL). In certain cases, the related SDIRs were not attached to the REO when the parts were repaired and provided to the operator. Consequently, the SDIR was not incorporated into the SDIR airplane document and the revised life limit of the repaired NLG and/or MLG components, as indicated in the SDIR, was not implemented. Those parts, repaired by REO that resulted in an SDIR, have a structural life limit that is lower than the life limit published in the Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM). The FAA is proposing this AD to address structural life limits that are lower than the life limit published in the MRM, Part 2. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the collapse of the affected NLG and/or MLG, possibly resulting in airplane damage and injury to the occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-32-112, dated November 11, 2019. This service information describes procedures for verifying that affected components are installed on the airplane, revising the structural life limits in the SDIR airplane document, and replacing affected parts if necessary.
The following service information describes certain repairs and structural life limits for the NLG and MLG components. These documents are distinct since they apply to different repair configurations.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-086, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-089, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-183, Revision B, dated January 15, 2013.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0367, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0627, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0630, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-634, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0712, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0783, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-786, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-835, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0913, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-918, Revision B, dated January 15, 2014.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-921, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0951, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0955, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-956, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0958, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1017, Revision A, dated July 15, 2011.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1041, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1084, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1153, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1154, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1187, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1206, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1219, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1220, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1224, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1250, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1251, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1255, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1286, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1302, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1650, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1673, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0225, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0227, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-414, Revision A, dated February 25, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-489, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0526, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-535, Revision A, dated February 17, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0536, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0555, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0557, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0562, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-570, Revision A, dated February 25, 2015.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0635, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0661, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0663, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0685, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0689, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0691, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0692, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0693, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-1002, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-1022, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-32-0056, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-32-0076, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information.”
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 456 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments by November 19, 2020.
None.
This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 8999 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by evidence that a revised structural life limit of some components of the nose landing gear (NLG) and/or main landing gear (MLG) was not implemented during repair. The FAA is issuing this AD to address structural life limits that are lower than the life limits published in the Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Part 2. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to the collapse of the affected NLG and/or MLG, possibly resulting in airplane damage and injury to the occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months from the effective date of this AD: Verify the airplane or technical records to determine if an NLG or MLG component listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-112, dated November 11, 2019, is installed on the airplane. If this verification determines that an affected component listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-112, dated November 11, 2019, is installed on the airplane, perform the actions specified in paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, as applicable.
If the total flight cycles of the component is less than the revised SDIR life limit specified in the applicable REO identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (58) of this AD minus 2,000 flight cycles: Within 12 months after completing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, incorporate the revised life limit of the affected component into the existing SDIR airplane document as specified in the applicable REO identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (58) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-086, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(2) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-089, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(3) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-183, Revision B, dated January 15, 2013.
(4) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0367, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(5) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0627, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(6) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0630, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(7) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-634, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(8) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0712, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(9) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0783, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(10) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-786, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(11) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-835, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(12) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0913, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
(13) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-918, Revision B, dated January 15, 2014.
(14) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-921, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(15) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0951, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(16) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0955, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(17) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-956, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
(18) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-0958, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(19) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1017, Revision A, dated July 15, 2011.
(20) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1041, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(21) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1084, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
(22) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1153, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
(23) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1154, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(24) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1187, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(25) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1206, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(26) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1219, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(27) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1220, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(28) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1224, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(29) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1250, Revision A, dated January 15, 2014.
(30) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1251, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(31) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1255, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(32) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1286, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(33) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1302, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(34) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1650, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(35) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-11-1673, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(36) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0225, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
(37) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0227, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(38) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-414, Revision A, dated February 25, 2015.
(39) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-489, Revision A, dated October 29, 2015.
(40) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0526, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(41) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-535, Revision A, dated February 17, 2015.
(42) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0536, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(43) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0555, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(44) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0557, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(45) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0562, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(46) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-570, Revision A, dated February 25, 2015.
(47) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0635, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(48) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0661, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(49) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0663, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(50) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0685, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(51) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0689, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(52) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0691, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(53) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0692, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
(54) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-0693, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
(55) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-1002, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(56) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-21-1022, Revision A, dated January 23, 2019.
(57) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-32-0056, Revision C, dated January 23, 2019.
(58) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 601R-32-32-0076, Revision B, dated January 23, 2019.
If the total flight cycles of the component is equal to or more than the revised SDIR life limit specified in the applicable REO identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (58) of this AD minus 2,000 flight cycles: Within 12 months or 2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after completing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, replace the affected component with a serviceable component.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any component listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-112, dated November 11, 2019, on any airplane without first incorporating the actions specified in paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2020-09, dated April 7, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7330; fax 516-794-5531; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec, Canada, J7N 1E1; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class D airspace at Glacier Park International Airport. This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace, designated as a surface area. Additionally, this action proposes to modify Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Further, this action proposes to modify Class E airspace, extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This action also proposes to remove the Smith Lake NDB from the Class E airspace legal descriptions. Lastly, this action proposes several administrative corrections to the airspace legal descriptions. This action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2020.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0825; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-27, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3695.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Glacier Park International Airport, Kalispell, MT, to support IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0825; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-27”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the “
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace at Glacier Park International Airport, Kalispell, MT. To properly contain IFR aircraft, this action proposes to add an extension to the airspace northeast of the airport. The airspace area would be described as follows:
This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace, designated as a surface area, to be coincident with the new Class D dimensions. This airspace area is also part-time and this action proposes to add the appropriate verbiage to the airspace legal description. The airspace area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the 032° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northeast of Glacier Park International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Additionally, this action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The action proposes to properly size the airspace to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The airspace area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 138° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 13.4 miles southeast of the airport, and with 2 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 19.5 miles southwest of Glacier Park International Airport.
This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This area is designed to contain IFR aircraft transitioning to/from the terminal and en route environments. The airspace area would be described as follows: That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 25-mile radius of the airport beginning at the 270° bearing from the airport, clockwise to the 090° bearing from the airport, thence along the 090° bearing to 45 miles east of the airport, thence within a 45-mile radius of the airport clockwise to the 270° bearing from the airport, thence along the 270° bearing to the point of beginning, 25 miles west of Glacier Park International Airport.
The action proposes to remove the Smith Lake NDB and all references to the NDB from the Class E2 and Class E5 text headers and the airspace legal descriptions. The navigational aid is not needed to define the airspace. Removal of the navigational aid allows the airspace to be defined from a single reference point which simplifies how the airspace is described.
Lastly, this action proposes several administrative corrections to the airspaces' legal descriptions. In the Class D legal description, the last sentence contains the term “Airport/Facilities Directory” this action proposes to update the term to “Chart Supplement”. This action proposes to remove the city name from the second line of Class D, Class E2, and Class E5 the text header. The airport's geographic coordinates do not match the FAA database; this action proposes to update the geographic coordinates in all of the airspace areas to “lat. 48°18′38″ N, long. 114°15′22″ W”
Class D, E2, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 5,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the 032° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northeast of Glacier Park International Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established, in advance, by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.2 miles each side of the 032° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northeast of Glacier Park International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.3 miles each side of the 138° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 13.4 miles southeast of the airport, and with 2 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the airport, extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 19.5 miles southwest of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 25-mile radius of the airport beginning at the 270° bearing from the airport, clockwise to the 090° bearing from the airport, thence along the 090° bearing to 45 miles east of the airport, thence within a 45-mile radius of the airport clockwise to the 270° bearing from the airport, thence along the 270° bearing to the point of beginning, 25 miles west of Glacier Park International Airport.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; correcting amendment.
This document contains a correction to the Petition for rulemaking (RM18-20-000) which published in the
Comments due 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 8, 2020.
Lawrence Greenfield, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6415,
On August 19, 2020, the Commission issued a
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing three virtual public meetings entitled “Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods; Proposed Rule.” The purpose of the public meetings is to discuss the proposed rule entitled “Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods,” which was issued under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). These public meetings are intended to facilitate and support the public's evaluation and commenting process on the proposed rule.
The public meetings will be held on November 6, 2020, from 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time; November 18, 2020 from 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time; and December 2, 2020 from 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time to 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice by January 21, 2021. See “How to Participate in the Public Meetings” in the
Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, these meetings will be held virtually to help protect the public and limit the spread of the virus.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 21, 2021. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), enacted in 2011, modernized U.S. food safety law to better ensure the safety and security of the nation's food supply. Section 204(d) of FSMA requires that FDA establish recordkeeping requirements for facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods that the Agency designates as high risk, to facilitate the rapid and effective traceability of such foods. These recordkeeping requirements will be in addition to the food traceability requirements under section 414 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350c) (added to the FD&C Act in title III, subtitle A, section 306, of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-188)) and the implementing regulations in subpart J of part 1 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 1.326 to 1.368) (the subpart J regulations). Congress directed FDA to adopt the subpart J regulations recordkeeping requirements to allow the Agency to identify the immediate previous sources and immediate subsequent recipients of foods (commonly referred to as “one-up, one-back” recordkeeping) to address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. In section 204(d)(1) of FSMA, Congress directed FDA to adopt additional recordkeeping requirements to prevent or mitigate foodborne illness outbreaks and address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals resulting from foods being adulterated under section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) or misbranded with respect to allergen labeling under section 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)).
In the
Section 204(d)(4) of FSMA states that, during the comment period for the proposed rule, FDA “shall conduct not less than 3 public meetings in diverse geographical areas of the United States to provide persons in different regions an opportunity to comment.” Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, these meetings will be held virtually to help protect the public and limit the spread of the virus.
FDA is therefore announcing a series of virtual public meetings entitled “Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods; Proposed Rule” so that stakeholders can better evaluate and comment on the proposed rule. These meetings will be held during the formal comment period on the proposed rule. All three public meetings will cover the same agenda items and are intended to facilitate and support the public's evaluation and commenting process.
While oral presentations from specific individuals and organizations will be necessarily limited due to time constraints during the public meetings, stakeholders may submit electronic or written comments discussing any issues of concern to the administrative record (the docket) for the proposed rule (Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0053). (See
The purpose of the public meetings is to provide information and facilitate comment so that stakeholders can better evaluate and provide input on the proposed rule. We invite interested parties to provide information and offer comments related to the proposed rule. During the public meetings we will present information on the various sections of the proposed rule: General Provisions; Traceability Program Records; Records of Growing, Receiving, Transforming, Creating, and Shipping Food; Special Requirements for Certain Persons and Foods; Procedures for Modified Requirements and Exemptions; Waivers; Records Maintenance and Availability; and Updating the Food Traceability List. Stakeholder panels will provide discussion on the various issues. There will be an opportunity for questions, as well as an opportunity for open public comment.
There will be a total of three virtual public meetings with different time frames, which will provide persons in different regions an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meetings.
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The “Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017,” (hereafter the “Act”) which became law on November 17, 2017, amended the Controlled Substances Act to allow for a new registration category for emergency medical services agencies that handle controlled substances. It also established standards for registering emergency medical services agencies, and set forth new requirements for delivery, storage, and recordkeeping related to their handling of controlled substances. In addition, the Act allows emergency medical services professionals to administer controlled substances outside the physical
Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before December 4, 2020. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
All comments concerning collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before December 4, 2020.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-377” on all correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
•
Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section (DPW), Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (571) 362-3261.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or “the Administration”) for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at
On November 17, 2017, the “Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017,” Public Law 115-83 (131 Stat. 1267) (“the Act”), became law.
The Act amended a section of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 823, by adding a new subsection, 21 U.S.C. 823(j). This new subsection alters a number of CSA requirements “[f]or the purpose of enabling emergency medical services professionals to administer controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V to ultimate users receiving emergency medical services.” 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(1). The Act also specifically authorizes the Attorney General (and thus the Administrator of DEA by delegation) to issue certain regulations to implement the Act.
The purposes of this proposed rule are twofold. First, this proposed rule is to codify in DEA regulations the statutory amendments made by the Act. Such proposed changes are merely conforming DEA's implementing regulations to statutory amendments of the CSA that have already taken effect. Second, this proposed rule amends DEA
When an individual experiences a medical emergency, his or her entry into the healthcare system may not start with the care of a physician within a traditional clinical setting, but instead with the intervention of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel affiliated with a local EMS agency at the incident site. EMS personnel, who provide emergency medical services by ground, air, or otherwise, respond to 37 million calls annually.
The delivery of emergency medical care is primarily a local function; and, accordingly, a wide variety of organizational structures are utilized across the nation. EMS programs may be a part of the local municipal government, hospital, or independent government agency, or may be contracted by local government with a private entity. Each state has a State EMS licensing office that is responsible for the overall planning, coordination, and regulation of the State EMS system, as well as licensing or certifying EMS providers and ambulances.
The Act established uniform EMS agency requirements for the administration of controlled substances while ensuring adequate safeguards against theft and diversion. The Act added a new subsection to the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 823(j), and in the process redesignated the previous subsection (j) as subsection (k). The new 21 U.S.C. 823(j) makes a number of notable changes to the CSA. The Act makes five key changes.
First, the Act creates a new registration category under the CSA for EMS agencies, directing the Attorney General (and thus the Administrator of DEA by delegation) to register such an agency under the CSA if the agency submits an application demonstrating that it is authorized to conduct emergency medical services under the laws of each State in which the agency practices. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(1)(A). Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(1)(B), the Act authorizes the Attorney General to deny the application of an EMS agency if registering it would be inconsistent with other requirements of 21 U.S.C. 823(j) or with the public interest based on the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
Second, the Act directs the Attorney General (and thus the Administrator) to allow a registered EMS agency to obtain a single registration for each State in which the agency administers controlled substances, rather than requiring the agency to obtain a separate registration for each location at which it operates within that State. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(2). The Act also provides that a hospital-based emergency medical services agency registered under 21 U.S.C. 823(f) may use the registration of the hospital to administer controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 823(j), without requiring the agency to acquire a separate registration. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(3).
Third, subject to certain restrictions, the Act authorizes EMS professionals of a registered EMS agency to administer controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V outside the physical presence of a medical director or authorizing medical professional in the course of providing emergency medical services. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(4). EMS professionals are only allowed to make such administrations if authorized by State law and pursuant to standing or verbal orders that satisfy a number of statutory conditions.
Fourth, the Act provides a variety of requirements for how registered EMS agencies must deliver controlled substances from registered to unregistered locations, store controlled substances, restock EMS vehicles at a hospital, maintain records, and otherwise conduct their operations. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(5)-(10).
Fifth, the Act specifically authorizes the Attorney General (and thus the Administrator) to issue regulations regarding the delivery and storage of controlled substances by EMS agencies.
The Act amended the CSA to add regulatory provisions pertaining to the handling of controlled substances by EMS professionals, and the majority of this proposed rule merely reiterates those statutory requirements. The portion of this proposed rule that goes beyond those statutory requirements includes proposed changes to the registration, security, recordkeeping, inventory, and administering requirements for EMS agencies, which are discussed below.
Consistent with the Act, DEA is proposing regulations to explicitly include EMS agencies handling controlled substances as registrants under the CSA,
In this manner, DEA will bring its regulations into conformity with the Act's amendments to the CSA. In particular, DEA's proposed 21 CFR 1300.06 would add 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(13)'s new definitions of relevant terms to DEA regulations. Section 1301.12 would be amended to reflect the statutory amendments of 823(j)(2) and 823(j)(5), and § 1301.13 would be amended to bring it into conformity with 823(j)(1). Proposed § 1301.20(a) is adapted directly from the statutory amendment, specifically from 823(j)(1)-(3). The proposed provisions of § 1301.80(a) would add provisions from 823(j)(6). Proposed § 1304.03(j) is taken from 823(j)(9)(A). Proposed § 1306.07(e) would add the provisions of 823(j)(4) and 823(j)(10)(D) to DEA regulations, while proposed § 1307.14 would add those of 823(j)(8).
Not all of the proposed amendments to DEA regulations, however, directly codify the Act's statutory amendments in DEA regulations. Some of the proposed changes—specifically, §§ 1301.20(b), 1301.80(b), 1304.03(i), 1304.04, 1304.27, 1306.07(f), and 1307.15—implement the purposes of the Act more broadly, consistent with the Administrator's authority to promulgate regulations under 21 U.S.C. 821, 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11), and 21 U.S.C. 871(b).
The Act contains a provision, 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(13), defining the terms used throughout its other provisions. In order to conform to the Act, DEA is proposing to add these new definitions to its regulations as part of a new section, 21 CFR 1300.06. This includes defining the terms “authorizing medical professional,” “designated location,” “emergency medical services,” “emergency medical services agency,” “emergency medical services professional,” “emergency medical services vehicle,” “hospital-based,” “medical director,” “medical oversight,” “registered emergency medical services agency,” “registered location,” “specific state authority,” “standing order,” and “verbal order.”
Additionally, the Act contains provisions that allows DEA to issue regulations specifying, with regard to the delivery of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(5), the types of locations that may be designated. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11)(A)(i). In order to conform with the Act, DEA has identified this type of location as a “stationhouse” and is proposing to add the definition of a “stationhouse” to its regulations as part of 21 CFR 1300.06.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.12(a), controlled substances may only be delivered to, and distributed or dispensed from, a DEA registered location. In addition, under the CSA and DEA regulations, a separate registration is required for each principal place of business or professional practice at one general physical location where controlled substances are manufactured, distributed, imported, exported, or dispensed by a person. 21 U.S.C. 822(e); 21 CFR1301.12(a).
Until the passage of the Act, the CSA and its implementing regulations did not directly mention EMS. Historically, DEA has not specifically registered EMS agencies to procure or dispense controlled substances. Instead, generally, EMS vehicles have obtained controlled substances for dispensing pursuant to a physician's instructions by operating under the registration of a hospital through one of two options.
Under the first option, an EMS vehicle owned and operated by a hospital handles controlled substances under the hospital's registration.
The Act authorized the Attorney General (and thus, by delegation, the Administrator) to register EMS agencies, which allowed for a new registration category for EMS professionals to administer controlled substances in schedule II-V to patients receiving emergency medical services. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(1). The Act thereby effectively amends the CSA to add a new category of registrant—an EMS agency—and to require DEA to grant registrations to those agencies if certain conditions are met. Thus, in conformity with the Act, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR 1301.13 and to add 21 CFR 1301.20 to provide for the registration of EMS agencies.
As part of this regulatory change, DEA is proposing to add § 1301.20(a) to its regulations, which will describe the registration requirements for EMS agencies registered under § 1301.13. The proposed registration requirements of § 1301.20(a) are taken directly from the Act, 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(1)-(3).
DEA recommends three options to allow EMS agencies to transition their registrations, in accordance with the Act. The three options for EMS agencies to transition are: (1) Transition immediately on the effective date established by DEA; (2) transition at the expiration of their current registration; or (3) transition three to six months prior to their renewal date. DEA recommends that registrants contact their local DEA field office to complete this transition.
Many EMS agencies currently utilize what is sometimes termed the “hub-and-spoke” model where the agency has a main or central location and several stationhouses managed by the main location. The stationhouses are strategically placed throughout a geographical area to provide timely responses to emergency medical needs of the residents of the area. Under DEA's current registration regulations, if only the main location is registered with DEA, the employees of each of the individual (unregistered) stationhouses are not allowed to acquire or store controlled substances at the unregistered stationhouse.
To lessen the burden for EMS agencies with several stationhouses in a single state, the Act allows EMS agencies to choose the option of a single registration in each state where the EMS
Additionally, the Act amended the CSA to specifically authorize EMS agencies to designate specific unregistered locations where controlled substances would be delivered and stored, but requires registered EMS agencies to provide notice of these locations to the Attorney General at least 30 days before delivery. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(5). DEA proposes to bring its regulations into conformity with the Act by adding 21 CFR 1301.20(b). Consistent with the Attorney General's authority under 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11)(A)(ii) to prescribe how EMS agencies provide notice of designated locations, that regulation proposes to require notification of the name and physical address of the designated location through DEA's website,
The Act also authorizes the Attorney General to issue regulations specifying the types of locations that may be designated by an EMS agency. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11)(A)(i). Pursuant to this authority, DEA is proposing to include a provision in § 1301.20(b) that would allow an EMS agency to label stationhouses as the types of location that would be considered a “designated location” of the EMS agency. Additionally, only agency locations that satisfy the proposed regulation's definition of stationhouse (
As discussed above, the provisions of proposed § 1301.20(b) outline the process by which a stationhouse is “designated” under an existing EMS agency registration. This notification must occur at least 30 days prior to the first delivery of controlled substances to the unregistered designated location of the agency. Unless an objection is raised by DEA, an unregistered location automatically becomes a designated location of the agency 30 days after notification of the designated location is made to DEA.
Additionally, parts of proposed § 1301.80 would codify in DEA regulations the Act's list of the locations where a registered EMS agency may store controlled substances.
Both the Act and the proposed definition of emergency services vehicles in § 1300.06 define EMS vehicles as ambulances, fire apparatus, supervisor trucks, or other vehicles used by an EMS agency for the purpose of providing or facilitating emergency medical care and transport or transporting controlled substances to and from the registered and designated locations.
The transportation of controlled substances for administration to EMS patients presents unique recordkeeping concerns. With regard to non-practitioners that transport controlled substances (
EMS agencies are typically the last registrants to possess controlled substances prior to administering to a patient at the scene of an emergency. As such, the two-registrant integrity system does not exist beyond the transfer to an EMS agency, in the traditional sense of registrant recordkeeping. Therefore, DEA is proposing recordkeeping regulations for EMS agencies to incorporate the Act's CSA amendments regarding recordkeeping, and to ensure an accurate accounting of the controlled substances outside the two-registrant integrity system.
DEA proposes § 1304.03(i) to require EMS agencies to maintain records of the EMS personnel whose State license or certification gives them the ability to administer controlled substances, in compliance with their State laws. Because states have differing requirements for the ability to handle controlled substances, maintaining records of employees authorized to handle controlled substances will help DEA identify the source of any diversion occurring at EMS agencies.
Proposed § 1304.03(i) is not based directly on the text of the Act, but instead on DEA's general authority under the CSA to prevent diversion of controlled substances by requiring registrants to maintain records.
Following an emergency response where controlled substances were administered, EMS personnel may not have enough time to return to their stationhouse to restock their EMS vehicle with controlled substances. Depending on the circumstances, the stationhouse may be a considerable distance from the hospital where the EMS personnel brought a patient, or the volume of emergencies may be so great that the ambulance does not have time to return to the stationhouse. Rural EMS systems in the United States may face transport distances of 20 to 100 miles to the nearest hospital.
Under § 1304.04(a), controlled substance records for all DEA registrants are required to be maintained for at least two years from the date of such inventory or records. Under this proposed rule, DEA would require maintenance of records of deliveries of controlled substances between all locations of the agency. Following the Act, 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(9)(B)(ii), DEA also proposes in § 1304.04(a)(5) to require that records be maintained, whether electronically or otherwise, at each registered and designated location of the agency where the controlled substances involved are received, administered, or otherwise disposed of.
Because EMS agencies have a unique registration that differs from other types of registrants, DEA is also proposing to add a new section to its regulations that describes the additional recordkeeping requirements applicable to EMS agencies. Consistent with the Act's amendments to the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(9), proposed § 1304.27(a) would require an EMS agency to maintain records for each controlled substance administered or disposed of in the course of providing emergency medical services. Under proposed § 1304.27(a), any EMS personnel who disposes of or administers controlled substances to a patient in the course of providing emergency medical care must record the name of the controlled substance(s) and detailed information about the circumstances surrounding the administration of the controlled substance(s) (
DEA proposes in § 1304.27(b)(3) that an EMS agency must maintain records of controlled substances delivered between registered and designated locations of the agency (except agencies restocking at the hospital under which the EMS agency is operating, because the hospital is required to keep records of such restocking). These records, for example, should include the name of the controlled substance(s), finished form, number of units in the commercial container, date delivered, and the address of the EMS agency location where the controlled substances were delivered. In the event of theft or loss of controlled substances, registrants must report such occurrence in accordance with the theft and loss reporting requirements of 21 CFR part 1304.
Finally, under 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(8)(c) of the Act, designated locations of an EMS agency must notify the registered location of their EMS agency within 72 hours of receiving controlled substances from a hospital for the purpose of restocking an EMS vehicle following an emergency response. DEA's proposed § 1304.27(c) would codify this requirement in DEA regulations. However, EMS agencies that operate under a hospital-based registration and receive restock of controlled substances from the hospital under which the agency is operating would be exempt from these requirements. In this specific instance, under proposed § 1307.14(a)(2), hospitals would already have a record of the controlled substances that the hospital delivered to the EMS agency operating under that hospital's registration. As such, it would be duplicative to require that EMS agency to obtain a receipt of those controlled substances because the EMS agency would be reporting receipt of the controlled substances back to the hospital that issued the controlled substances in the first place.
Every DEA registrant must follow certain security requirements to prevent the theft or loss of controlled substances, and the Act authorizes the Attorney General to issue regulations specifying the manner in which controlled substances must be stored by EMS agencies. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11)(B). Pursuant to this authorization, DEA proposes to implement physical security requirements for EMS agencies similar to those already established for practitioners in § 1301.75. Although § 1301.75 addresses general physical security controls for practitioners, EMS agencies have some unique security concerns that require additional security controls as discussed below.
Pursuant to its authorization under the Act to issue regulations regarding EMS agencies' storage of controlled substances, DEA proposes to add § 1301.80 to address additional security concerns for EMS agencies. First, although designated locations of EMS agencies are not individually registered, they are allowed to store controlled substances in certain secured locations. Proposed § 1301.80(a)(1) through (4) specifies the locations within an EMS agency where controlled substances may be stored, and implements the Act's allowance in 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(6) of storage at EMS registered locations, at designated locations, inside of EMS vehicles stationed at registered or designated locations, and inside of EMS vehicles that are actively in use by the agency.
In addition, DEA proposes to add § 1301.80(b) to allow two options for storage components in which EMS agencies may store controlled substances. This change is not taken directly from the Act's statutory amendments to the CSA, but instead implements the Act's authorization to the Attorney General to “specify . . .
The first option in proposed § 1301.80(b)(1) would allow for an EMS agency to store controlled substances in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet or safe that cannot be readily removed. This storage component must be located at a secured location, as stated in proposed § 1301.80(i).
The second option in proposed § 1301.80(b)(2) would allow an EMS agency to store controlled substances in an automated dispensing system (ADS) machine, under specific conditions. An ADS is “a mechanical system that performs operations or activities, other than compounding or administration, relative to the storage, packaging, counting, labeling, and dispensing of medications, and which collects, controls, and maintains all transactions in information.” 21 CFR 1300.01. Currently, DEA regulations permit retail pharmacies to install and operate ADS machines at long-term care facilities as a way of preventing the accumulation of surplus controlled substances at those facilities.
The proposed conditions in § 1301.80(b)(2) under which an EMS agency could use an ADS machine to store controlled substances include the following: (1) The ADS machine must be located at an EMS agency registered location or designated location; (2) the EMS agency cannot permit any entity other than the registered EMS agency to install and operate the ADS machine; (3) the ADS machine cannot be used to directly dispense controlled substances to an ultimate user; and (4) EMS agency must operate the ADS machine in compliance with requirements of State law. It is necessary that access to the ADS machine be limited to employees of the EMS agency in order to account for and monitor dissemination of controlled substances.
In sum, proposed § 1301.80(b) would provide alternative options for short-term or long-term storage of controlled substances that are actively being transported or stored in a fixed location.
As discussed in Section C, the Act allows for controlled substances to be delivered between a registered location and a designated location of an EMS agency. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(5). Also, pursuant to its authorization to issue regulations regarding the delivery of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(11), DEA proposes that medical directors determine who accepts deliveries of controlled substances because medical directors provide oversight for EMS agencies. Specifically, proposed § 1301.80(c) would require that the delivery of controlled substances at a registered or designated location be accepted by a medical director of the agency or a person designated in writing by the medical director. For record keeping purposes of the delivery of controlled substances, proposed § 1304.27(b)(3) would require the medical director of the agency or designated person accepting the controlled substances to provide their signature, title, date received, quantity, and any additional information required. The proposed regulations specify the requirements that would be set forth regarding the delivery of controlled substances for emergency medical services.
DEA proposes to add § 1306.07(e), which implements 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(4) in DEA regulations, allowing EMS professionals of registered EMS agencies to administer controlled substances outside the physical presence of a medical director or authorizing medical professional in the course of providing emergency medical services.
Many agencies have given their EMS personnel the autonomy to administer controlled substances in the event of an emergency by establishing what is commonly known as a standing order. The Act defines a standing order as a written medical protocol in which a medical director determines in advance the medical criteria that must be met before administering controlled substances to individuals in need of emergency medical services. 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(13)(M). DEA's proposed § 1300.06 incorporates this definition into DEA regulations.
The Act and proposed § 1306.07(e) would allow standing orders to be used by EMS professionals. Under both the Act and the proposed regulation, such EMS professionals must be authorized by their individual State to administer controlled substances.
In the absence of standing orders, EMS personnel may receive a verbal order. Under the Act and proposed § 1300.06, a verbal order is an oral directive through any method of communication including by radio or telephone, directly to an EMS professional, to contemporaneously administer a controlled substance to individuals in need of emergency medical services outside the physical presence of the medical director or authorizing medical professional.
Under the Act and proposed § 1306.07(e), an EMS professional may administer directly a controlled substance in schedules II-V outside of the presence of a practitioner in the course of providing emergency medical services if the administration is authorized by State law and is pursuant to a verbal order that is issued in accordance with the policy of the agency. Such authorization must be provided by a medical director or authorizing medical professional in response to a request by the EMS professional with respect to a specific patient, either in the case of a mass casualty incident, or to ensure the proper care and treatment of a specific patient. Under proposed § 1307.15 and consistent with the Act under 21 U.S.C. 823(j)(4)(B), EMS agencies must contact the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) for the area or DEA Headquarters Diversion Control Division for approval of shortages, public health emergencies, or mass casualty events.
As explained above, DEA is issuing this proposed rule to amend its regulations in order to make them consistent with the changes made to the CSA by the “Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017,” and to otherwise implement the Act's requirements. DEA conducted an analysis of the statutory and regulatory changes of this proposed rule, the results of which are discussed below.
This proposed rule was developed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 13771. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
DEA expects that the annual economic impact of this proposed rule, in the form of changes in transfers, to range from a decrease of $302,885 to an increase of $550,612 at a 7 percent discount rate; or from a decrease of $379,584 to an increase of $690,043 at a 3 percent discount rate. Fees paid to DEA are considered transfer payments and not costs.
E.O. 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017, and published in the
DEA analyzed the impact of the following provisions of the proposed rule: Allowing EMS agencies to register under the CSA with a single registration for each State in which an agency operates, along with the proposed security and recordkeeping requirements for such a registrant; allowing EMS personnel to administer controlled substances in schedules II-V outside the presence of a medical director or authorizing medical professional when authorized in the State and pursuant to a standing or verbal order; and allowing EMS agencies and hospitals to transfer controlled substances between each other in order to restock EMS vehicles or to deliver controlled substances in the event of shortages, public health emergencies, or mass casualty events. Additionally, this proposed rule is incorporating into regulation several new terms defined in the Act.
Benefits of the proposed rule are expected to be generated by reducing regulatory uncertainty among EMS agencies and personnel regarding the administration, transfer, and disposal of controlled substances, and these benefits will be discussed qualitatively. By allowing EMS registrants to consolidate multiple registrations into a single registration for each State in which they currently operate, there will be a resulting reduction in transfer payments for current registrants. The proposed rule may also result in an increase in transfer payments for EMS agencies that are currently not separately registered. The expected net change in transfer payments is quantified below. There are also labor
While this proposed rule is allowing for a new registration category for EMS agencies that handle controlled substances, many EMS agencies have already obtained separate DEA registrations as “Mid-level Practitioner—Ambulance Service” (MLP-AS).
Similarly, of the 2,108 fee-exempt registrations, 411 can be consolidated into an agency's existing registration in the same State, reducing the labor-related paperwork burden for these agencies, as they no longer need to complete multiple registration renewal applications for the same State every three years. Combining the 411 fee-exempt registrations with the 395 fee-paying registrations results in a total of 806 registration renewal applications that are eliminated. The resulting annual cost savings generated from this reduction in labor burden is $3,026.
DEA assumes that all other EMS agencies not registered as MLP-AS currently operate under the registration of another DEA registrant in one of two ways: A DEA registered practitioner, typically a licensed physician, serves as the medical director of the EMS agency; or for EMS agencies operated by hospitals, the agency will utilize that hospital's registration. In the latter case, hospital-based EMS agencies can continue to operate under the registration of their hospital after promulgation of this proposed rule. In the former case, practitioners who serve as the medical director of an EMS agency may utilize a single registration for their personal place of business and EMS agency locations,
Accurately measuring how many EMS agencies fall into the two aforementioned categories is not possible using DEA registration data, because DEA has not historically collected data on how many practitioners hold multiple registrations for the purposes of serving as the medical director of an EMS agency. Therefore, DEA chose to estimate how many new registrations will be required by considering the entire range of possible scenarios, and calculated the outcome if either 0 percent, 50 percent, or 100 percent of EMS agencies will receive a transferred practitioner registration from their medical director. While DEA cannot accurately assess the likelihood of each of these scenarios given the lack of available data, DEA considers the 50 percent scenario to be the most plausible of the three estimates because it is the mid-point of the upper and lower bounds.
In order to calculate the range of impacted entities, DEA must first estimate the total population of EMS agencies active in the United States. Because DEA registration data are insufficient for these purposes, DEA used the latest data available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of EMS. According to an NHTSA research note published in 2014,
DEA then analyzed its registration database to match current MLP-AS registrants with the corresponding EMS organizational types defined in the NHTSA research note.
It is reasonable to assume that a portion of these estimated EMS agencies not separately registered operate multiple locations in the same State. The NHTSA research note states that EMS agencies are “licensed in each State to provide service to a specific location or service area. EMS service areas can be very large, as in a geopolitical boundary, such as a county, city or municipality, or as small as the local service area of a single EMS agency station.” This definition suggests that the 21,283 total EMS agencies estimated by NHTSA includes EMS agencies operating multiple stations in the same State. Because only one registration is required for multiple “agencies,” as defined by NHTSA, DEA must adjust its calculation of the number of EMS agencies not separately registered to account for this.
In order to estimate how many EMS agencies not separately registered operate more than one location in a State, DEA used the existing MLP-AS registrant category as a model. It is reasonable to assume that the characteristics of the population of EMS agencies registered as MLP-AS are broadly representative of the characteristics of the population of EMS agencies that are not separately registered. As discussed previously, the fee-paying MLP-AS registrant category contains 1,413 registrations that can be consolidated into 1,018 registrations. Similarly, the fee-exempt category contains 2,108 registrations that can be consolidated into 1,697 registrations. DEA used these figures to calculate a State-level “agency-to-location” ratio of 0.72 for fee-paying registrants,
As discussed previously, DEA's methodology for estimating the number of new EMS agency registrations must account for situations in which a practitioner is currently using a single DEA registration to serve as the medical director of multiple EMS agency locations. Because DEA does not have the ability to identify how many EMS agencies are currently operating in this manner, DEA chose to calculate a range of between 0 percent and 100 percent of EMS agencies that may have a DEA registration transferred from a practitioner. If 100 percent of the estimated 3,809 fee-paying EMS agencies not separately registered are currently operating under a practitioner registration that will be transferred from their medical director, there will be no increase in fees (transfer payments) from these future registrants to DEA. If 0 percent of these 3,809 fee-paying EMS agencies operate under a practitioner registration that can be transferred from their medical director, there will be an increase in fees (transfer payments) of $928,126 to DEA on an annual basis.
Similarly, if 100 percent of the estimated 1,483
For the respective 0 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent scenarios, DEA converted the estimated annual change in transfer payments calculated above into annualized present values at a 7 percent discount rate and a 3 percent discount rate over 12 years, or three registration cycles.
As detailed previously, of the estimated 4,827 fee-paying EMS agency locations and 10,807 fee-exempt EMS agency locations not separately registered, only 3,809 and 9,110 (a total of 12,919) will require separate registrations after the promulgation of this proposed rule, respectively. If 100 percent of these 12,919 EMS agencies will have an existing practitioner registration transferred from their medical director, there will be a decrease in labor burden of $16,568,
However, if 0 percent of these 12,919 EMS agencies will have an existing practitioner registration transferred from their medical director, there will be a one-time increase in labor burden of $272,830
Finally, under the 50 percent scenario, there will be a one-time increase in labor burden of $136,426
Table 3 summarizes the estimated net change in labor burden cost for both scenarios as a result of this proposed rule.
Because some EMS agencies are currently registered under the practitioner business activity as MLP-AS, this proposed rule adopts similar physical security controls for EMS agencies as practitioners. EMS agencies will be authorized to store controlled substances at EMS registered locations and designated locations inside of a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet or safe that cannot be readily removed or an automated dispensing system; inside EMS vehicles stationed at registered or designated locations; and inside EMS vehicles that are actively in use by the agency. DEA expects currently unregistered EMS agencies to be operating in a similar manner as registered MLP-AS, and such EMS agencies are already in compliance with the minimum physical security requirements outlined above. Therefore, DEA expects the physical security requirements of this proposed rule to be a codification of existing practice that will impose no costs.
The recordkeeping provisions of this proposed rule require EMS agencies to record the details of any administration, disposal, acquisition, distribution, or delivery of controlled substances and make these records readily retrievable. DEA believes that EMS agencies are already collecting and storing these records as a normal course of their business operations, and therefore these recordkeeping requirements will have no economic impact on EMS registrants. Designated EMS locations with vehicles that restock controlled substances at a hospital after an emergency event or receive controlled substances from another designated location must also notify the registered location of the EMS agency within 72 hours. Because designated EMS locations have 72 hours to notify registered locations, and because designated and registered locations are likely to communicate on a more frequent basis during their normal course of business, DEA does not expect these events to require any additional communication between designated and registered locations. Therefore, this provision will also have no economic impact on EMS registrants. DEA requests comment on the impact of this proposed rule's recordkeeping requirements.
Prior to the CSA amendments of the “Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017,” the CSA did not explicitly explain exactly how its rules governing the administration, disposal, delivery, acquisition, and distribution of controlled substances applied to EMS agencies. Most adhered to rules governing mid-level practitioners in the absence of regulation that addressed the unique circumstances of EMS operations, and advocacy groups frequently highlighted their concerns regarding the need for regulations to specifically address EMS operations.
With the Act, and this proposed rule codifying the resulting CSA amendments into DEA regulation, EMS registrants have clear rules that direct their behavior regarding controlled substances. DEA expects there to be benefits resulting from this reduction in regulatory uncertainty, especially the explicit authorization of standing and verbal orders, by allowing EMS vehicles to restock their supply of controlled substances at hospitals following an emergency, and by allowing EMS vehicles and hospitals to transfer controlled substances between each other in the event of a shortage, public health emergency, or mass casualty event. DEA does not have a method to quantify the impact of these reductions in regulatory uncertainty; however, DEA believes the regulatory clarity provided by this proposed rule will result in a benefit to EMS agencies, EMS professionals, and the public. Furthermore, due to the Act and proposed rule's authorization of standing and verbal orders afforded to EMS personnel which was previously not authorized, DEA considers this rule to be an enabling rule for the purposes of E.O. 13771.
The proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have direct effects on one or more Indian tribes via Indian Health Services.
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA), has reviewed this rule and by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will have no bearing in reference to costs associated with registration fees.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities unless it can certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. DEA evaluated the impact of this rule on small entities, and discussions of its findings are below.
As discussed in the above economic analysis of the proposed rule, because DEA is not able to identify how many EMS agencies currently operate under the practitioner registration of their medical director, DEA chose to assess the impact of this proposed rule by considering the full range of possible scenarios. Thus, DEA considered the impact of the proposed rule if 0 percent, 50 percent, or 100 percent of EMS agencies receive an existing DEA registration from a practitioner. For the purposes of this analysis, DEA conservatively assumes that 0 percent of EMS agencies will have a DEA registration transferred from a practitioner because this is the scenario with the largest possible economic impact on affected entities, including small entities.
There are three types of EMS agencies that are affected by this proposed rule: hospital-based, private, and governmental. Of these types, some agencies currently hold their own DEA registrations while others operate under the registration of another DEA registrant. As detailed previously, DEA estimated that 3,809 private EMS agencies and 9,110 governmental EMS agencies are currently not separately registered with DEA, while 1,018 private EMS agencies and 1,697 governmental EMS agencies are currently registered with DEA. Additionally there are an estimated total of 1,236 hospital entities
These three types of entities are affected by at least one of the following four quantifiable impacts of the proposed rule: registration fees, recordkeeping and security requirements, the labor burden of obtaining a DEA registration, and the labor burden of renewing a DEA registration. Only the 4,827 private EMS agencies are affected by registration fees. Governmental EMS agencies are fee-exempt and hospital-based agencies can continue to operate under their hospital's registration. All three types of entities, whether separately registered or not, are affected by the security and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rule. However, there is no impact because these entities are expected to already be in compliance with these requirements. Both the estimated 3,809 private agencies and 9,110 governmental agencies not separately registered must incur the labor burden of registering and renewing their registration with DEA every three years. Hospital-based agencies already incur this labor burden, and this proposed rule will have no further impact on these entities. The following table summarizes the estimated impact of the provisions of the proposed rule for each type of EMS agency.
DEA compared the combined annual economic impact per entity of the proposed rule with the annual revenue of the smallest of small entities in each affected industry sector. For each of the affected industry sectors, the annual increase was not more than 0.6 percent of average annual revenue for the smallest entities. The table below summarizes the results.
While this rule affects a substantial number of small entities, because the economic impact for the smallest entities is not significant, the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on small entities as a whole. In summary, DEA's evaluation of economic impact by size category indicates that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
Pursuant to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
DEA is proposing to create a new collection of information by establishing new recordkeeping and notice requirements for EMS agencies.
For each EMS professional employed by a registered EMS agency, the agency would be required to maintain those documents, as required by the State in which the professional practices, which describe the conditions and extent of the professional's authorization to dispense or administer controlled substances, and must make such documents available for inspection and copying by authorized employees of the Administration.
EMS agencies would also be required to maintain records of all controlled substances received, administered, or otherwise disposed of. Such records would be maintained, whether electronically or otherwise, at each registered and designated location of the agency where such controlled substances are received, administered, or otherwise disposed of.
For each dose of controlled substances administered or disposed of in the course of providing emergency medical services, these records must include: (1) The name of the substance; (2) the finished form of the substance; (3) the date the substance was administered or disposed of; (4) identification of the patient, if applicable; (5) amount administered; (6) the initials of the person who administered the substance; (7) the initials of the medical director or authorizing medical professional issuing the standing or verbal order; (8) the amount disposed of, if applicable; (9) the manner disposed of; and (10) the initials of the person who disposed of the substance and of one witness to the disposal.
For controlled substances acquired from or distributed to another registrant, the records must include: (1) The name of the substance; (2) the finished form of the substance; (3) the number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container; (4) the number of units or volume of finished form and commercial containers transferred; (5) the date of the transfer; (6) name, address, and registration number of the person to or from whom the substance was transferred; and (7) the name and title of the person in receipt of the transferred substance.
For deliveries of controlled substances between a designated location and a registered location—except hospital-based agencies restocking at the hospital under which the agency is operating—the records must include: (1) The name of the substance; (2) the finished form of the substance; (3) the number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container; (4) the number of units or volume of finished form and commercial containers transferred; (5) the date of the transfer; (6) the name and address of the designated location to which the substance is delivered; and (7) the name and title of the person in receipt of the transferred substance.
For destruction of a controlled substance (
Additionally, designated locations of EMS agencies would be required to notify their registered locations within 72 hours of any receipt of controlled substances in the following circumstances: (1) An EMS vehicle primarily situated at the designated location acquires controlled substances from a hospital while restocking following an emergency response; or (2) a designated location receives controlled substances from another designated location of the same EMS agency.
DEA does not have a good basis to estimate the number of respondents and burden related to this collection of information, because there is no available data regarding the administration, receipt, delivery, acquisition or distribution, and disposal of controlled substances specific to the operation of EMS agencies. Therefore, DEA submits the following estimated number of respondents and burden associated with this collection of information and will update this estimate with data when the collection is renewed:
Burden per response: .0833 hour.
Figures are rounded.
2.
DEA is proposing to modify an existing collection of information by establishing new registration rules for EMS agencies.
Under proposed § 1301.13, EMS agencies, if authorized by state law, may register as a new type of business activity. A new “EMS Agency” business activity will be added to the application for registration and application for registration renewal forms to allow EMS agencies to obtain a DEA registration that will permit EMS agencies to deliver controlled substances to their
To lessen the burden for EMS agencies with several stationhouses in a single state, DEA proposes to allow EMS agencies to choose the option of a single registration in each state where the EMS agency operates. If the agency operates EMS facilities in multiple states, the agency must have a separate registration in each state where the agency operates.
DEA estimates the following number of respondents and burden associated with this collection of information:
Burden per response: 0.10 hour.
Figures are rounded.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collections of information are encouraged. Consistent with 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2), DEA solicits comment on the following issues:
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of DEA.
• The accuracy of DEA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for DOJ, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to RIN 1117-AB37/Docket No. DEA-377.
All comments must be submitted to OMB on or before November 4, 2020. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
Chemicals, Drug traffic control.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Exports, Imports, Security measures.
Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Drug traffic control, Prescription drugs.
Drug traffic control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Drug Enforcement Administration proposes to amend 21 CFR parts 1300, 1301, 1304, 1306, and 1307 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 802, 821, 822, 829, 871(b), 951, 958(f).
(a) Any term not defined in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802).
(b) As used in parts 1301, 1304, 1306, and 1307 of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings specified:
(1)
(i) Who is registered under 21 U.S.C. 823;
(ii) Who is acting within the scope of the registration; and
(iii) Whose scope of practice under a State license or certification includes the ability to provide verbal orders.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Is governmental (including fire-based and hospital-based agencies), non-governmental (including hospital-based agencies), private, or volunteer-based;
(ii) Provides emergency medical services by ground, air, or otherwise; and
(iii) Is authorized by the State in which the organization is providing such services to provide emergency medical care, including the administering of controlled substances, to members of the general public on an emergency basis.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(i) An emergency medical services agency that is registered under 21 U.S.C. 823(j); or
(ii) A hospital-based emergency medical services agency that is covered by the registration of the hospital.
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, 831, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 956, 957, 958, 965.
(b) * * *
(5) A designated location that is identified to the Administration by a registered emergency medical services agency at least 30 days prior to first delivering controlled substances to that unregistered location.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(d) At the time a retail pharmacy, hospital/clinic, practitioner, emergency medical services agency or teaching institution is first registered, that business activity shall be assigned to one of twelve groups, which correspond to the months of the year. The expiration date of the registrations of all registrants within any group will be the last day of the month designated for that group. In assigning any of the above business activities to a group, the Administration may select a group the expiration date of which is not less than 28 months nor more than 39 months from the date such business activity was registered. After the initial registration period, the registration expires 36 months from the initial expiration date.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(a) An emergency medical services agency shall be issued a registration under § 1301.13 if the agency submits an application demonstrating it is authorized to conduct such activity under the laws of each State in which the agency practices, unless the Administration determines that the issuance of such a registration would be inconsistent with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 823(j) or the public interest based on the factors listed in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
(1) An agency has the option of requesting a single registration in each State where the agency administers controlled substances in lieu of a separate registration for each location of the agency within a State.
(2) If a hospital where an emergency medical services agency is based is registered under § 1301.13, the agency may use the registration of the hospital to administer controlled substances in accordance with § 1306.07(e) of this chapter, without being separately registered as an emergency medical services agency.
(b) A registered emergency medical services agency may deliver controlled substances from a registered location of the agency to an unregistered location of the agency only if the agency designates the type of unregistered location as a stationhouse for such delivery; and notifies the Administration at least 30 days prior to the first delivery of controlled substances to the unregistered location. The delivery of controlled substances by a registered emergency medical services agency pursuant to this section shall not be treated as distribution. To notify the Administration, the emergency medical services agency must submit the name and physical address of the designated location online at
(a) A registered emergency medical services agency may store controlled substances at any of the following secured locations:
(1) A registered location of the agency;
(2) A designated location of the agency 30 days following notification to DEA in accordance with § 1301.20;
(3) In an emergency medical services vehicle situated at a registered location or designated location of the agency; or
(4) In an emergency medical services vehicle used by the agency that is traveling from, or returning to, a registered location or designated location of the agency in the course of responding to an emergency, or otherwise actively in use by the agency.
(b) A registered emergency medical services agency may store controlled substances in a storage component that is identified as:
(1) A securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet or safe that cannot be readily removed; which is located at a secured location specified in § 1301.80(a)(1) through (4); or
(2) An automated dispensing machine as defined in § 1300.01; which is
(i) Located at a secured location specified in 1301.80(a)(1) and (2);
(ii) Installed and operated by the emergency medical services agency;
(iii) Not used to directly dispense controlled substances to an ultimate user; and is
(iv) In compliance with the requirements of State law.
21 U.S.C. 821, 823(j), 827, 831, 871(b), 958(e)-(g), and 965, unless otherwise noted.
(i) For each emergency medical services professional employed by a registered emergency services agency, the registered agency must maintain in a readily retrievable manner those documents (as required by the State in which an emergency medical services professional practices), which describe the conditions and extent of the professional's authorization to dispense controlled substances, and must make such documents available for inspection and copying by authorized employees of the Administration. Examples of such documentation include protocols, practice guidelines, or practice agreements.
(j) A registered emergency medical services agency shall maintain records, as described in § 1304.27, of all controlled substances that are received, administered, or otherwise disposed of pursuant to the agency's registration.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, every inventory and other record required to be kept under this part must be kept by the registrant, and be available for inspection and copying by authorized employees of the Administration, for at least 2 years from the date of such inventory or record.
(4) Records shall include records of deliveries of controlled substances between all locations of the agency.
(5) Records shall be maintained, whether electronically or otherwise, at each registered and designated location of the agency where the controlled substances involved are received, administered, or otherwise disposed of.
(a) Each emergency medical services agency registered pursuant to § 1301.20 of this chapter (including a hospital-based emergency medical services agency using a hospital registration under § 1301.20(a)(2) of this chapter) must maintain records for each dose of controlled substances administered or disposed of in the course of providing emergency medical services. The following information shall be included in each record:
(1) Name of the substance;
(2) Finished form of the substance (
(3) Date administered or disposed of;
(4) Identification of the patient (consumer), if applicable;
(5) Amount administered;
(6) Initials of the person who administered the controlled substance;
(7) Initials of the medical director or authorizing medical professional issuing the standing or verbal order;
(8) Whether a standing or verbal order was issued and adopted;
(9) Amount disposed of, if applicable;
(10) Manner disposed of; and
(11) Initials of person who disposed and witness to disposal.
(b) For each acquisition of a controlled substance from another registrant, or each distribution of a controlled substance to another registrant, each emergency medical services agency registered pursuant to § 1301.20 of this chapter must maintain records with all of the following information:
(1) For each acquisition of a controlled substance from another registrant:
(i) Name of the substance;
(ii) Finished form of the substance (
(iii) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container;
(iv) Number of commercial containers acquired (
(v) Date of the acquisition;
(vi) Name, address, and registration number of the person from whom the substance was acquired; and
(vii) Name and title of the person acquiring the controlled substance.
(2) For each distribution of a controlled substance to another registrant:
(i) Name of the substance;
(ii) Finished form of the substance (
(iii) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container (
(iv) Number of commercial containers distributed;
(v) Date of the distribution;
(vi) Name, address, and registration number of the person to whom the substance was distributed; and
(vii) Name and title of the person in receipt of the distributed controlled substances.
(3) For each delivery of controlled substances between a designated location and a registered location:
(i) Name of the substance;
(ii) Finished form of the substance (
(iii) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container (
(iv) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container and number of commercial containers delivered (
(v) Date of the delivery;
(vi) Name and address of the designated location to which the substance is delivered; and
(vii) Name and title of the person in receipt of the controlled substances.
(4) For destruction of a controlled substance:
(i) Name of the substance;
(ii) Finished form of the substance (
(iii) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container (
(iv) Number of units or volume of finished form in each commercial container and number of commercial containers destroyed (
(v) Date of the destruction;
(vi) Manner of disposal of the substance, if applicable;
(vii) Name, address, and registration number of the person to whom the substance was distributed, if applicable; and
(viii) Name and title of the person destroying the controlled substance.
(c) A designated location of an emergency medical services agency that receives controlled substances must notify the agency's registered location within 72 hours of receipt of the controlled substances, in the following circumstances:
(1) An emergency medical services vehicle primarily situated at a designated location of the emergency medical services agency acquires controlled substances from a hospital while restocking following an emergency response;
(2) The designated location of the emergency medical services agency receives controlled substances from another designated location of the same agency.
21 U.S.C. 821, 823(j), 829, 831, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
This part sets forth the process and procedures for dispensing, by way of prescribing and administering controlled substances to ultimate users. The purpose of such procedures is to provide safe and efficient methods for dispensing controlled substances while providing effective controls against diversion.
(e) An emergency medical services professional of a registered emergency medical services agency may administer directly (but not prescribe) controlled substances in schedules II-V outside the physical presence of a medical director or authorizing medical professional in the course of providing emergency medical services if the administration is authorized by law of the State in which it occurs; and is pursuant to:
(1) A standing order that is issued and adopted by one or more medical directors of the agency, including any such order that may be developed by a specific State's authority; or
(2) A verbal order that is:
(i) Issued in accordance with a policy of the agency; and
(ii) Provided by a medical director or an authorizing medical professional in response to a request by the emergency medical services professional with respect to a specific patient —
(A) In the case of a mass casualty incident; or
(B) To ensure the proper care and treatment of a specific patient.
(f) An emergency medical services agency shall maintain, at a registered location of the agency, a record of the standing or verbal orders issued or adopted in accordance with § 1304.13 of this chapter.
21 U.S.C. 821, 822(d), 823(j), 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(a) Notwithstanding the definition of registered location in § 1300.06 of this chapter, a registered emergency medical services agency may receive controlled substances from a hospital for purposes of restocking an emergency medical services vehicle following an emergency response, and without being subject to the requirements of § 1305.03 of this chapter, provided all of the following criteria are met:
(1) The registered or designated location of the agency operating the vehicle maintains the record of such receipt in accordance with § 1304.27(b) of this chapter;
(2) The hospital maintains a record of such delivery to the agency in accordance with § 1304.22(c) of this chapter; and
(3) If the vehicle is primarily situated at a designated location of an emergency medical services agency, such location notifies the registered location of the agency within 72 hours of the vehicle receiving the controlled substances.
(a) Hospitals and emergency medical services agencies' registered locations, and designated locations may deliver controlled substances to each other, with written approval from the Special Agent in Charge of DEA for the area or DEA Headquarters, in the event of:
(1) Shortages of such substances;
(2) A public health emergency; or
(3) A mass casualty event.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend its regulations concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The proposed rule would make the following three changes. First, the proposed rule would revise the Coast Guard's existing regulations to allow waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel to conduct an operational risk assessment instead of a waterway suitability assessment (WSA) without first obtaining Captain of the Port approval. Second, the proposed rule would revise existing regulations to update incorporated technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions. Third, for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements, the proposed rule would require these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting natural gas that are
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager, Coast Guard, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Division, Commandant (CG-OES-2); telephone 202-372-1413, email
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
We do not plan to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if our consideration of public comments indicates a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend the regulations concerning waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) in 33 CFR part 127. The proposed rule would make the following three changes.
First, the proposed rule would add new § 127.008 to allow waterfront facilities handling LNG as fuel (LNG fuel facilities
Second, the proposed rule would update the technical standards already incorporated by reference in part 127 to reflect the most recent published editions of these standards. We have determined that modified, expanded, and new LNG fuel facilities, waterfront facilities handling LNG, and waterfront facilities handling LHG are built to the most recent industry standards available at the time of modification, expansion, or construction and not the outdated standards currently codified in 46 CFR part 127. Therefore, owners and operators would not incur any cost to meet the updated standards. The Coast Guard anticipates these updated industry standards would apply to one new LNG fuel facility, two new waterfront facilities handling LNG, and three new waterfront facilities handling LHG per year in the next 10 years.
Third, for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must comply with the WSA requirements in § 127.007, the proposed rule would require these facilities to provide information to the Coast Guard at the time the WSA is submitted regarding the nation of registry for vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the facilities and the nationality of citizenship of officers and crew serving on board those vessels. We are proposing this change to assist us in meeting our obligation under § 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241). This statute requires the Coast Guard, when operating as a contributing agency in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) shoreside licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal, to provide this information to FERC. The Coast Guard anticipates two waterfront facilities handling LNG that must submit a WSA would be affected annually by this proposed change.
Eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu of a WSA would result in cost savings to the LNG fuel facility owner. This change is deregulatory under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, with annualized cost savings to both industry and the government of approximately $16,843 using a 7-percent discount rate.
The Ports and Waterways Safety Authorities (PWSA) (46 U.S.C. chapter 700), authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port, harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically, sections 70011 and 70034 of Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage, and movement of hazardous materials on a vessel and waterfront facility on or along U.S. navigable waters as necessary to protect the vessel, structure, water, or shore area. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation 0170.1(II)(70)). The purpose of the proposed rule is to revise existing regulations for the assessment of LNG fuel facilities by reducing unnecessary requirements; update technical standards applicable to waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG; and implement a statutory provision for waterfront facilities handling LNG that must complete a WSA.
The IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI,
In order to comply with these stricter IMO emissions standards and realize economic advantages associated with the increasing LNG supply, there has been a growing interest by the maritime industry in converting existing vessels and constructing new vessels to use LNG as a marine fuel. The maritime industry is also considering a variety of methods for supplying LNG to vessels for use as a marine fuel, including delivery from vessels (such as barges and small tank vessels) or from shore-based structures on waterfront facilities handling LNG (such as storage tanks, mobile tank trucks, and rail cars).
Existing regulations for waterfront facilities handling LNG are contained in 33 CFR part 127. Although originally written to address large quantities of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo at large storage facilities,
Section 127.007 contains the Letter of Intent (LOI) and WSA requirements, including the Preliminary WSA and Follow-on WSA requirements. The WSA examines the risk of transporting large volumes of LNG through connected waterways and the transfer of LNG to or from waterfront facilities handling LNG. The Coast Guard developed the WSA requirement to address safety and security risks potentially presented by LNG carriers traveling to or from waterfront facilities handling LNG.
The facility owner or operator submits the LOI and WSA documents to the Coast Guard. The LOI must contain: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and operator; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the Federal, State, or local agency having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation; (3) the name, address, and telephone number of the facility; (4) the physical location of the facility; (5) a description of the facility; (6) the LNG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of LNG shipments to or from the facility; and (7) charts showing waterway channels and identifying commercial, industrial, environmentally sensitive,
The Preliminary WSA must contain an analysis of the following topics: (1) Port characterization; (2) characterization of the LNG facility and the LNG tank vessel route; (3) risk assessments for maritime safety and security; (4) risk management strategies; and (5) resource needs for maritime safety, security, and response. It must also contain a section listing recommended risk mitigation measures and conclusions (33 CFR 127.007(f)(2)).
This information gives the COTP the opportunity to identify any issues or factors that might have been overlooked when considering the various potential safety and security impacts the LNG marine traffic may have on the port and associated waterways. It also provides an opportunity for the project sponsor and the COTP to identify the stakeholders at the port who should be consulted when developing the Follow-on WSA. The Follow-on WSA provides a complete analysis of the topics outlined in the Preliminary WSA and identifies credible security threats and navigational safety hazards for the LNG marine traffic, along with appropriate risk management strategies and the resources needed to carry them out. The information obtained in the LOI and WSA enables the Coast Guard to provide specific recommendations, in a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) described in § 127.009, as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG marine traffic to the Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation.
Coast Guard regulations in § 127.017 allow facility operators to request alternative procedures to those in § 127.007 if the alternative provides at least the same degree of safety provided by the regulations. An owner or operator seeking to use an alternative procedure should identify the “gaps” where requirements cannot be met or are not appropriate and should explain what alternatives the Coast Guard should consider instead. Whenever possible, owners and operators should reference existing standards, practices, and procedures to help substantiate the request.
Prior to the construction of three LNG fuel facilities, the Coast Guard met with the facility owners to discuss Federal regulations that would apply to their projects. During those discussions, the owners indicated that it was inappropriate for their projects to conduct a WSA under § 127.007 because their intended operations did not include use of the waterway. Unlike waterfront facilities handling LNG that receive large quantities of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo on large tankships on the waterway, their LNG fuel facilities would receive LNG from shore-based sources using tank trucks. Instead of conducting a WSA for their projects, they requested to conduct an ORA focused specifically on their intended operations.
Based on information provided by these facility owners that: (1) LNG would not be delivered to the facility by a vessel on the waterway; (2) incidents involving LNG would be limited to the location of the facility; (3) the quantity of LNG stored at the facility would be relatively small compared to larger waterfront facilities handling LNG that import or export LNG as cargo; and (4) the quantity of LNG stored on vessels as fuel would not pose as much of a safety concern to the port as larger tankships that transport LNG to larger waterfront facilities handling LNG to be imported or exported as cargo, the Coast Guard agreed that COTPs could allow the use of ORAs as an alternative to WSAs under § 127.017.
Since ORAs and WSAs follow similar procedures for assessing risk, the Coast Guard is proposing to modify the scope of assessments to be conducted for LNG fuel facilities to focus on operations solely taking place at the facilities, provided that LNG is not delivered to the facilities by LNG tank vessels. If an LNG fuel facility would receive LNG by vessel, an assessment of the waterway—that is, a WSA—would need to be carried out to determine the impact of the proposed operations on the port and waterway.
Under this proposed rule, prospective applicants seeking authorization to build, modify, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility would be allowed to submit an LOI and an ORA to the Coast Guard, which would enable us to provide specific recommendations, in a LOR described in § 127.009, to agencies having jurisdiction. Eliminating the requirement to submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu of a WSA would eliminate unnecessary paperwork associated with analysis of a waterway not being used by the facility and provide regulatory certainty for future LNG fuel facility project proponents.
By eliminating unnecessary paperwork and reducing the regulatory burden on facility owners and operators, the Coast Guard is promoting the goals of Executive Orders 13771 and 13777. Reducing the regulatory burden and increasing cost savings could increase the maritime industry's level of interest in converting existing vessels and constructing new vessels that use LNG as a marine fuel to comply with stricter emissions standards.
For waterfront facilities handling LNG that must conduct a WSA under proposed § 127.007, the proposed rule would require these facilities to submit to the Coast Guard, at the time the WSA and LOI are submitted, information on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing those facilities. This proposed change would implement the statutory mandate in section 304(c)(2) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241) requiring the Coast Guard to provide this information to FERC when the Coast Guard is operating as a contributing agency in the FERC shoreside licensing process for an onshore or near-shore LNG terminal. This is the most efficient way to comply with the statutory requirement that we provide this information to FERC.
The proposed rule would also update the technical standards found in the existing regulations that would be applicable to waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG.
We provide a section-by-section description in the following paragraphs of our proposed amendments to 33 CFR part 127, subparts A through C, in section number order with topical headings.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend the authority citation for this Part by removing 33 U.S.C. 1231 and adding, in its place, 46 U.S.C. 70034. This reflects the changes made by the Coast Guard
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word, “existing” from paragraphs (a) and (c) because the term as it is currently defined in § 127.005 does not cover waterfront facilities handling LNG constructed after 1988. This is a problem because if it is not removed, paragraphs (a) and (c) would only apply to new waterfront facilities handling LNG and waterfront facilities handling LNG that were built before 1988. In order to ensure paragraphs (a) and (c) apply to all LNG facilities, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the term “existing.”
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend paragraph (c) by removing a reference to § 127.701, which contains security requirements for the marine transfer area for LNG of inactive facilities. These security requirements are now contained in 33 CFR part 105, subpart B, and apply to facilities subject to part 127. The reference to § 127.701 is duplicative and no longer needed.
A new paragraph (f) is proposed to clarify the standards approved for incorporation by reference in § 127.003 only apply to facilities constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the implementation date of the final rule. As used in this section, we consider “constructed” to mean construction of a new facility, “expanded” to mean changes to a facility that was previously constructed that results in an increase in the storage capacity or operations at the facility and “modified” to mean changes made to a facility that was previously constructed that does not result in increased storage capacity or operations (
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section by updating the technical standards to reflect the most recent published editions of the standards. We encourage the use of these updated standards because they reflect the best available technologies, practices, and procedures that are recommended by consensus bodies and other groups with experience in the industry. However, only waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the implementation date of the final rule would be required to meet the applicable requirements outlined in the most recent editions of these standards. Existing facilities may voluntarily request authorization to apply the updated standards, but they will only be required to apply the standards that applied to them prior to the implementation date of the final rule.
The following is the list of the standards we propose to update:
• American Petroleum Institute (API) standard, API Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September 2015. This standard presents the current state of knowledge and technology in the fields of static electricity and stray currents applicable to the prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum industry, and it is based on both scientific research and practical experience. The 2015 edition builds on the technically sound work presented in prior editions. It emphasizes the need to maintain awareness and the continuing need to develop and use sound procedures for controlling hazards and minimizing the possible static ignition risks associated with handling hydrocarbons.
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard, ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS
• ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, August 30, 2019. This standard contains requirements for piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants; and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination, inspection, and testing of piping. The 2018 edition standardizes the use of SI metric units for some purposes and U.S. Customary units for others, and provides a table for conversion of units.
• ASTM standard, ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Specification for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved May 1, 2015. This standard covers the specifications for the design and manufacture of international shore connections to be used with marine firefighting systems during an emergency when a stricken ship has a system failure. This standard has continued to be reapproved since development and has not changed. We are merely incorporating the most recent published edition of this standard.
• International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IEC 60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 29-1: Gas Detectors—Performance Requirements of Detectors for Flammable Gases, July 2016. This standard specifies general requirements for construction, testing, and performance and describes the test methods that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed apparatus for the detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with air. This standard superseded
• National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective April 21, 2017. This standard applies to the selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable extinguishing equipment and Class D extinguishing agents. The 2018 edition includes clarifications on electronic monitoring, obsolete extinguishers, extinguishers in areas containing oxidizers, extinguisher signs, and mounting equipment and cabinets.
• NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids, including waste liquids. The 2018 edition incorporates essential safety updates and references to current UL standards, as well as completely revised requirements for general purpose warehouses.
• NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019. This standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and loss of property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work. In the 2019 edition, the scope was modified to clarify that the standard is intended to be used for preventing injuries and not just loss of life during hot work operations. The purpose was also revised to clarify that the standard provides requirements for everyone involved in hot work operations.
• NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection, safety, and related requirements for the location, design, construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants. The 2019 edition presents a reorganization of the requirements for plant siting and layout to facilitate better focus and implementation of the requirements contained in the standard. This edition also includes new requirements under which a single-wall ASME container with supplementary design and fabrication requirements can be safely implemented for storage at small-scale LNG facilities.
• NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016. The provisions of this standard apply to the design, modification, construction, inspection, maintenance, and testing of electrical systems, installations and equipment. The 2017 edition addresses the advancement of privately-owned wind and solar power generation and distribution equipment, including coverage of higher voltage systems that were once only the utilities' domain.
• NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18, 2005. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building. The time temperature curve of NFPA 251 referenced in the definition of fire endurance rating in § 127.005 has not changed. We are merely incorporating the most recent published edition of NFPA 251.
The Coast Guard is also proposing to add three new standards to the list of technical standards incorporated by reference in § 127.003 to provide requirements to LNG fuel facilities on conducting ORAs. The proposed new standards are—
• Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL), Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development and Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October 2015 Edition. This standard provides guidance to the industry on development, organizational, technical, functional, and operational issues in order to ensure global compatibility and secure a high level of safety, integrity, and reliability for LNG bunkering (fueling) facilities.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and Installations for Supply of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition, 15 January 2015. This standard gives guidance on the minimum requirements for the design and operation of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility, including the interface between the LNG supply facilities and receiving ship.
• ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December 2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal, and port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
The Coast Guard also proposes to amend the introductory text to § 127.003 by adding a reference at the end of the paragraph to refer to § 127.017 for alternative compliance methods. We propose this change to clarify that later editions of the standards listed in § 127.003 could be considered as an acceptable alternative if they can be shown to provide a degree of protection, safety, or performance equal to or better than the standard we recognize and prior approval is obtained by the COTP.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend § 127.005 by adding a new definition for “LNG fuel facility” and by revising the existing definitions for “Facility” and “Fire endurance rating.” We are proposing to add the definition for “LNG fuel facility” to describe waterfront facilities that handle LNG for the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel, and that does not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. We are proposing to revise the definition of “facility” to specify it includes LNG fuel facilities. The proposed revised definition of “fire endurance rating” is being amended to reference the 2006 edition of NPFA 251; however, the time-temperature curve referenced in the 2006 edition of NFPA 251 remains the same as in the current incorporated by reference 1990 edition.
The proposed rule would amend paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) by removing the word “existing” from each paragraph because the term—as it is currently defined in § 127.005—does not cover waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed after 1988 and 1996, respectively. By removing the word, “existing” from paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) it clarifies that the LOI and WSA requirements apply to the new construction or expansion of any LNG or LHG facility that would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway.
The proposed rule would redesignate existing paragraphs (g) and (h), as paragraphs (h) and (i). We would also add a new paragraph (g) to require an owner or operator intending to build a new LNG facility to submit the WSA no later than the date that the owner or
Finally, in this section the Coast Guard proposes to add a new paragraph (j) to clarify that an owner or operator intending to build an LNG fuel facility, modify an LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility, may comply with the new requirements proposed in § 127.008 in lieu of the requirements in § 127.007.
The Coast Guard proposes to add this new section, which would contain the LOI and new ORA submission requirements for owners or operators of LNG fuel facilities. Since an LNG fuel facility would not receive LNG from vessels, it is not associated with LNG tank vessel traffic for which the WSA is designed. Instead, an analysis of the safety and security of the marine transfer operation is appropriate. ORAs are suitable for evaluating and identifying risks and mitigation measures for situations involving quantities and delivery methods of LNG that are much smaller than those associated with large quantities of LNG that are imported or exported as cargo at large storage facilities. In the event that an LNG fuel facility would receive LNG by vessel using the waterway, a WSA would need to be carried out to determine the impact of the proposed operations on the port and waterway. The Coast Guard anticipates this proposed new section would help lead to reduced costs for LNG fuel facilities because owners or operators would no longer have to submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to obtain approval before conducting an ORA in lieu of a WSA.
Proposed new paragraph (a) would require an owner or operator seeking to build an LNG fuel facility, modify the construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an ORA in lieu of a WSA to submit an LOI to the Coast Guard at least 1 year before LNG transfer operations begin. We propose to allow an owner or operator the option of completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA. This approach would give owners and operators the ability to make appropriate business decisions in order to maintain flexibility for future operations without compromising marine safety. An owner or operator of an LNG fuel facility may initially provide LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel from LNG transported to the facility via a tank truck or rail car. This type of operation would require completion of an ORA only. However, at a future time the same facility may elect to receive LNG from vessels using the waterway, which would then require completion of a WSA to ensure potential impacts on the waterway due to increased LNG vessel traffic are fully assessed.
Proposed new paragraph (b) would require the LOI to contain the requirements listed in existing § 127.007(c)(1) through (c)(5), as follows: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and operator; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the agency having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation; (3) the name, address, and telephone number of the facility; (4) the physical location of the facility; and (5) a description of the facility. If there is any change in the information provided in the LOI, or if no LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next 12 months, proposed new paragraph (c) would require the owner or operator to notify the Coast Guard in writing within 15 days of discovering this information.
Proposed new paragraph (d)(1) would establish that the ORA must be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO 18683:2015(E) and Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105, or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A. The Coast Guard selected these standards because the ISO standard and the DNVGL-RP were created specifically to address LNG fuel facilities and are complementary of each other (
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section to accommodate an LOR based on an ORA. After the COTP receives the information and analysis under the LOI and ORA requirements in § 127.008, the COTP will issue a LOR as to the operational safety and security of the LNG fuel facility to the Federal, State, or local government agencies having jurisdiction for siting, construction, and operation of the facility and send a copy to the owner or operator of the proposed LNG fuel facility. Currently, a LOR is issued after the COTP receives the information and analysis under the LOI and WSA requirements in § 127.007. The proposed amendment would add the issuance of a LOR when the Coast Guard receives the information and analysis under proposed new § 127.008.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise paragraph (c)(1) to update the mailing address for submitting appeals of District Commander rulings related to actions taken by Coast Guard officials under part 127. We also propose to revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to reflect a name change for the office where appeals should be sent.
We propose to amend paragraph (a) to clarify that the COTP may consider alternative compliance methods. Newer editions of a standard we incorporate by reference in § 127.003 could be considered as acceptable alternatives if they could be shown to provide a degree of protection, safety, or performance equal to or better than the incorporated standard.
We proposed to delete the word “existing” from paragraph (b) to clarify that all waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG—regardless of when they were constructed—must submit the information required in § 127.019.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend this section to reflect the correct section references in the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A, which is proposed to replace the 1994 edition. The standards referenced involve plant siting and layout, piping systems and components, instrumentation and electrical services, transfer systems for LNG, refrigerants, other flammable fluids, and seismic design of LNG plants.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (a) to add the text “(incorporated by reference, see § 127.003)” to direct the reader to more details about the material incorporated by reference. Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (c) to reflect the correct section references as contained in the 2017 edition of the standard. This change is needed to ensure that auxiliary generators and other sources of power comply with the latest edition of NFPA 70, as indicated in Section 700.12 of this standard.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) by referencing section 16.4 of the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A. We also propose amending paragraph (c)(1) by referencing section 500.5(B)(1) of the 2017 edition of NFPA 70, which defines a Class 1, Division 1 location. The current regulations reference section 9-4 in the 1994 edition of NFPA 59A and section 500-5(a) in the 1993 edition of NFPA 70.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (b) by referencing the 2018 edition of NFPA 30. The current regulations reference Chapter 4 of the 1993 edition, which pertains to the storage of containers and portable tanks. The standard has been updated over the years, and information that was once part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to different chapters throughout the standard. Accordingly, we can no longer reference a specific chapter and propose to adopt the standard in total.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) by referencing the 2019 edition of NFPA 59A. In paragraph (b) we also propose to reference the 2019 edition of NFPA 51B. The current regulations reference the 1994 edition of NFPA 59A and the 1994 edition of NFPA 51B. Section 10.4.3 of NFPA 59A and NFPA 51B relate to repairs and identify specific requirements for welding and brazing.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (a) by updating NFPA 59A to the 2019 edition and NFPA 10 to the 2018 edition. The current regulations reference the 1994 edition of NFPA 10. Section 16.6.1 of NFPA 59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 relate to portable fire extinguishers and identify specific requirements for portable and wheeled fire extinguishers.
In this section, the Coast Guard proposes to change “ASTM F 1121” to “ASTM F 1121-87” to reference the standard by its correct designation and to reference the 2015 edition of this standard. The standard ASTM F 1121-87 provides specifications for international shore connections used in marine fire applications.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove these sections from the CFR. These regulations are no longer needed because facilities regulated under part 127 are required to comply with the maritime security regulations for facilities contained in 33 CFR part 105.
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard proposes to change “ASME B31.3” to “ASME B.31.3-2018” to reference the standard by its correct designation and to reference the 2018 edition of this standard instead of the 1993 edition. This standard pertains to process piping and contains requirements for piping typically found in petroleum refineries, including chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, cryogenic plants, and related processing plants and terminals. We also propose to reference § 127.003 with respect to the reference to API Recommended Practice 2003 (API RP 2003) in paragraph (h). This standard, as updated in 2015, outlines requirements for protection against ignitions arising out of static, lightning, and stray currents.
In paragraph (a)(4)(ii), the Coast Guard proposes to change American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard “ANSI B16.5” to “ASME B16.5-2017” to reference the standard by its correct designation and to reference the 2017 edition of the standard. This standard outlines design specifications for pipe flanges and flanged fittings. The current regulations reference a 1988 edition of the standard, but now uses the term “ANSI” rather than “ASME.”
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word “existing” from these sections to clarify that the regulations in §§ 127.1103 and 127.1105 apply to new construction in the marine transfer area on all LHG facilities and not just to “existing” LHG facilities.
In paragraph (a), the Coast Guard proposes to change “ANSI S12.13, Part I” to “IEC 60079-29-1” to reference the name of the standard by which the original ANSI standard is now known. The current regulations reference the 1986 edition of ANSI S.12.13, Part I. We propose to incorporate by reference the July 2016 edition of IEC 60079-29-1, which pertains to performance requirements of detectors for flammable gases.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend paragraph (b) by referencing the 2018 edition of NFPA 30. The current regulations reference Chapter 4 of the 1993 edition, which pertains to the storage of containers and portable tanks. The standard has been updated over the years, and information that was once part of Chapter 4 has been relocated to different chapters throughout the standard. Accordingly, we can no longer reference a specific chapter and intend to adopt the standard in total.
The Coast Guard proposes to remove the word “existing” to clarify that § 127.1501 applies to new construction on all LHG facilities and not just to “existing” LHG facilities.
In this section, the Coast Guard proposes to change “ASTM F 1121” to “ASTM F 1121-87” to reference the standard by its correct designation and to reference the 2015 edition of this standard. The standard ASTM F 1121-87 provides specifications for international shore connections used in marine fire applications.
In the following sections, we propose to remove the word “shall,” and replace it with the word “must” to more clearly convey these sections contain requirements: §§ 127.011, 127.019, 127.301, 127.309, 127.311, 127.313, 127.315, 127.317, 127.319, 127.321, 127.401, 127.403, 127.405, 127.407, 127.409, 127.613, 127.615, 127.617, 127.1207, 127.1301, 127.1302, 127.1309, 127.1311, 127.1313, 127.1315, 127.1317, 127.1319, 127.1321, 127.1325, 127.1401, 127.1403, 127.1405, 127.1407, 127.1409, 127.1601, 127.1603, and 127.1605. Additionally, in §§ 127.005, 127.101, 127.107, 127.201, 127.313, 127.405, 127.603, 127.611, 127.1101, 127.1102, 127.1107, 127.1203, 127.1313, 127.1405, and 127.1503, we propose to add the text “(incorporated by reference, see § 127.003)” to direct the reader to more details about the materials incorporated by reference in the “Incorporation by reference” section contained in § 127.003. In § 127.107, we propose to delete “National Electrical Code” and insert “NFPA” in its place to reflect the correct name of NFPA 70.
Material proposed for incorporation by reference appears in § 127.003. For information about how to view this material, see the
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's regulatory analysis below.
We performed our regulatory analysis for this proposed rule based on the Coast Guard's PWSA authority to address safety and security issues raised by the increased use of LNG by maritime vessels. The Coast Guard is proposing to:
• Modify current regulations to allow LNG fuel facilities that do not receive LNG from vessels to conduct an ORA instead of the WSA without first obtaining COTP approval per existing § 127.007;
• Update the technical standards currently referenced in 33 CFR part 127 to reflect the most recent published editions;
• Amend the existing regulations by removing the word “shall” and replacing it with the word “must”; and
• Require a waterfront facility handling LNG that must submit a WSA and LOI (LNG import/export facility)
Table 1 of this analysis provides a summary of the affected population, cost savings, no cost changes, and unquantified benefits of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost savings to industry of $16,157 (with a 7-percent discount rate), and an annualized cost savings to the government of $690 (with a 7-percent discount rate), for a total annualized cost savings of $16,847 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
There are currently 12 existing LNG import/export facilities, 3 existing LNG fuel facilities, and 106 existing LHG facilities that are regulated under 33 CFR part 127. Table 2 presents the projected number of LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities over the 10-year analysis period. Based on the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database on activation dates of the 3 existing LNG fuel facilities and the projected activation dates of 1 LNG fuel facility under construction, the Coast Guard estimates that 10 new LNG fuel facilities would be built during the 10-year analysis period, or 1 annually.
Table 2 contains the number of new facilities to become operational over a 10-year period of analysis.
The Coast Guard proposes to add new § 127.008, which would allow businesses that intend to build an LNG fuel facility, modify an existing LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility to complete an LOI and ORA instead of an LOI and a WSA under § 127.007. The Coast Guard determined that conducting an ORA is more appropriate than conducting a WSA because the waterfront facilities are handling LNG for the sole purpose of providing LNG from shore-based structures to vessels for use as a marine fuel, and they do not transfer LNG to or receive LNG from vessels capable of carrying LNG in bulk as cargo. The ORA is focused on the safety and security associated with shore-based operations within the marine transfer area, whereas a WSA focuses more on the risks and vulnerabilities of the waterway associated with an LNG import/export facility. Although ORAs and WSAs follow similar procedures for assessing risk, the Coast Guard determined that the scope of the assessment for an LNG fuel facility could be narrowed to focus on operations solely taking place at the facility.
Currently, LNG fuel facilities have the option of submitting an alternative request and completing a modified WSA or ORA that focuses on operational risk, or the option of completing a traditional
According to the OMB-approved ICR for LNG and LHG facilities with an OMB Control Number of 1625-0049, completing an alternative request requires 2 clerical hours and 8 managerial hours. The mean hourly wage rates for clerks and managers were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS reports that the mean hourly wage rates for clerks and managers were $28.68 and $75.95 in 2018, respectively.
Therefore, the Coast Guard estimates the labor cost of completing an alternative request to be about $1,097, which includes $94.64 in clerical labor cost (2 clerical hours × $47.32 per hour) and $1,002.56 in managers labor cost (8 managerial hours × $125.32 per hour). With the proposed rule, LNG fuel facilities would no longer submit an alternative request to complete an ORA; therefore, each new facility would have a one-time cost savings of $1,097 (we show the cost occurs annually because of the assumption of one new facility entering service each year). As shown in table 3, given that 75 percent of the new facilities would submit an alternative request, the Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to industry to be about $823 using a 7-percent discount rate.
As part of requesting an alternative approval to conduct an ORA, the requesting party would meet with the COTP to discuss the alternative. These meetings often require representatives of the requesting firm to travel to meet with the COTP. For this reason, the travel costs associated with these meetings mainly depend on the distance between the facility and the firm's headquarters. Review of the headquarters locations and the site locations of existing and under construction LNG fuel facilities in our MISLE database suggests that 75 percent of the facilities are approximately an 80-mile round trip drive from the COTP; therefore, the Coast Guard assumes the representatives of these facilities would drive to the meeting. Flight travel would be required for visits to the other 25 percent of facilities.
The Coast Guard estimates that it would take approximately 2 hours to complete the 80-mile round trip drive, and including driving time, we estimate the duration of the meeting would take about 4 work hours. The BLS reported a mean hourly wage rate for an engineer to be $51.33 in 2018; using a load factor of 1.65, we obtained a loaded mean hourly wage rate of about $84.69 ($51.33 × 1.65).
The Coast Guard estimates the total labor cost per meeting when industry representatives drive to the COTP to be about $2,277 annually, which is the sum of $338.76 in engineer's labor cost (4 hours × $84.69), $1,002.56 in manager's labor cost (2 managers × 4 hours × $125.32), and $936 for the consultant's labor cost (4 hours × $234).
To calculate the cost of driving to the COTP's facility, the Coast Guard used the 2018 General Services Administration (GSA) reimbursable rate for personal vehicles, $0.54 per mile, which considers the cost of fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.
With the proposed rule, industry representatives would no longer need to drive to meet with the COTP to submit and discuss the alternative, resulting in an annual cost savings of $2,321 per meeting ($43 driving cost + $2,277 in labor cost). As shown in table 4, given that about 56.5 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities would drive to the COTP, the Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to industry of no longer having to drive to the COTP to discuss an alternative request to be about $1,299 using a 7-percent discount rate.
As stated above, 25 percent of the facilities submitting alternative requests would need to fly to meet with the COTP. The Coast Guard estimates that, including travel time, the trip would take approximately 12 work hours. Accordingly, the labor cost per meeting would be about $6,832, which is the sum of $1,016 for an engineer's labor cost (12 hours × $84.69 per hour), $3,008 for a manager's labor cost (2 managers × 12 hours × $125.32 per hour), and $2,808 for a consultant's labor cost (12 hours × $234 per hour).
To calculate the cost of flying to the COTP's facility, the Coast Guard first computed the cost of a plane ticket, hotel, rental car, and per diem. The Coast Guard estimates the cost of each round trip flight (non-stop) to be about $350, for a total flight cost of $1,400 (4 flight tickets × $350 per flight ticket).
The Coast Guard estimates that the proposed rule would result in an annual cost savings of about $9,021 per meeting ($2,189 in transportation cost and $6,832 in labor cost) as industry representatives would no longer need to fly to meet with the COTP. Given that 18.75 percent of the new LNG fuel facilities (one facility a year) would choose to fly to meet with the COTP, the Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to industry of not flying would be about $1,691 ($9,021 × 1 facility × 0.75 × 0.25) using a 7-percent discount rate.
Based on reviews of data in MISLE and discussions with Coast Guard SMEs, the Coast Guard determined that of the four LNG fuel facilities (three existing and one under construction), three submitted an alternative request and completed an ORA and one completed a WSA. Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates that under the existing regulatory requirements 25 percent of LNG fuel facilities would complete a full WSA instead of submitting an alternative request. Discussions with industry representatives suggest that consulting firms hired by the facility to conduct WSAs and ORAs would take approximately 289 hours to complete an ORA and 500 hours to complete a WSA. Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates the average cost to complete a WSA to be $117,000 (500 consultant hours × $234 per hour) and the average cost to complete an ORA to be $67,626 (289 consultant hours × $234 per hour), for a cost savings of $49,374. Table 6 presents the annualized cost savings to industry for completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA. Given that only 25 percent of new facilities complete a WSA, the Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings to industry of completing an ORA in lieu of a WSA to be approximately $12,344 ($49,374 in cost savings × 1 facility × 0.25 of facilities that submit WSAs) using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted or present value cost savings of industry completing an ORA in place of a WSA to be about $86,696 over a 10-year period of analysis using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 7 contains the total cost savings to industry of removing the requirements that LNG fuel facilities submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. The Coast Guard estimates the total present value or discounted cost savings to industry of the proposed rule over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $113,482 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to industry to be about $16,157 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.
The Coast Guard is proposing to incorporate by reference updated and new industry standards that are available and known to the industry. Based on discussions with an industry consultant and SMEs in the CG-OES, the Coast Guard determined that new, expanded, and modified LNG import/export facilities, LNG fuel facilities, and LHG facilities are built to the most current industry standards available at the time of construction, expansion, or modification and not the outdated standards currently codified in 33 CFR part 127. In addition, the new industry standards do not apply to facilities constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after the implementation date of the final rule. Hence, the Coast Guard does not anticipate owners and operators of new, expanded and modified facilities to incur any cost to meet the updated or new industry standards. If you have comments concerning this assumption, please submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
In addition, as part of the LOI, the Coast Guard proposes to add new paragraph § 127.007(g) requiring an LNG import/export facility that complete a WSA to provide information to the Coast Guard on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting liquefied natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. This requirement would only be applicable when a facility has to submit the LOI and WSA to the Coast Guard and is not required every time a vessel comes to port. Because both the LOI and WSA are submitted years before the facility becomes operational, Coast Guard SMEs have determined that it is highly unlikely any specific details regarding vessels and their crew would be known at the time the LOI and WSA are submitted. Table 8 summarizes the proposed changes with no cost impacts. If you have comments or have questions concerning the no cost determination presented in Table 8, please submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2019-0444 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Under the current regulation in § 127.017, the Coast Guard must review alternative requests submitted by facilities seeking to conduct a modified WSA. According to the most recent ICR for 33 CFR part 127 with an OMB Control Number of 1625-0049, reviewing an alternative request requires 4 hours of enlisted staff time (2 hours of E-5 time and 2 hours of E-6 time) and 1 hour of two officers' time combined (0.5 hours of O-2 time and 0.5 hours of O-3 time). To estimate the labor cost of reviewing alternative requests, we used loaded hourly wage rates of officers and enlisted staff members in
Given that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities have currently submitted an alternative request and given that there is only one submission, the Coast Guard estimates annualized cost savings to the Federal Government of no longer reviewing these requests to be about $229 ($306 in cost saving × 1 facility × 0.75) using a 7-percent discount rate.
In addition to reviewing the alternative request, Coast Guard staff must also meet with representatives of the firm submitting the alternative request. Discussions with Coast Guard SMEs in the CG-OES revealed that the meeting lasts 2 hours and involves an O-3 and O-4 level staff of the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Coast Guard estimates the total labor cost of reviewing an alternative request to be $358 ((2 hours of O-3 time × $82) + (2 hours of O-4 time × $97)). Therefore, given the assumption that 75 percent of LNG fuel facilities would submit alternative requests and given that there will be one submission, the average annual cost savings to the Federal Government of no longer meeting facility representatives would be $269 ($358 in cost saving × 1 facility × 0.75), undiscounted.
Finally, the Coast Guard expects the Federal Government to save money from reviewing an ORA when compared to a WSA. The OMB-approved ICR with a Control Number of 1625-0049 reports that reviewing a WSA and the corresponding Hazard Identification (HAZID)
Table 9 presents the total cost savings to the Federal Government of the proposed change that would eliminate the requirement to submit an alternative request and meet with the COTP to conduct an ORA in lieu of a WSA. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted or present value cost to the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $4,845 using a 7-percent discount rate. The Coast Guard estimates the annualized cost savings to the Federal Government to be about $690 using a 7-percent discount rate.
Table 10 summarizes the total costs of this proposed rule to industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of analysis. The Coast Guard estimates the total discounted or present value cost to industry and the Federal Government over a 10-year period of analysis to be about $118,328 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. We estimate the annualized cost savings to be about $16,847 in 2018 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate. Using a perpetual period of analysis, the Coast Guard estimates the total annualized cost savings of this notice of proposed rulemaking to be $11,527 in 2016 dollars and discounted back to 2016 using a 7-percent discount rate.
While developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considered three alternatives to the proposed rule. We present a summary of the alternatives below and show their corresponding impact and cost savings in table 11.
In this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would reduce industry burden by allowing new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA. This alternative would not impose any additional costs to industry. We rejected this alternative because the Coast Guard would not be updating the existing incorporated by reference (IBR)
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would allow new LNG fuel facilities to submit an ORA instead of a WSA as long as the facility representatives meet with the COTP and get the ORA approved. Although this alternative is less burdensome compared to the baseline, the Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it would require industry representatives to continue meeting with the COTP in person to discuss the ORA. A requirement to meet the COTP would needlessly impose greater burden than the proposed rule without providing an improvement in safety sufficient to justify the difference in burden.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the Coast Guard considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Below is a threshold analysis of the small entity impacts.
The proposed rule would apply to new LNG fuel facilities, LNG import and export facilities, and new LHG facilities.
The Coast Guard has determined the proposed rule would have no cost or a cost savings impact on existing LNG fuel facilities and would generate cost savings to one new facility per year. In particular, the Coast Guard estimates that the proposed rule would generate a cost savings of about $16,153, using 7-percent discount rate, to one new LNG fuel facility per year. To estimate the potential impact on small entities, the $16,153 in cost saving has to be compared with the annual revenue data of the new LNG fuel facility impacted by the proposed rule. The Coast Guard determined that an entity would have to have an annual revenue of $1,615,300 or less for the proposed rule to have an impact greater than 1 percent of revenue.
Moreover, using the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards table,
No not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG fuel facilities. In addition, this proposed rule would not have an adverse or beneficial impact on small government entities.
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would have no cost or a cost savings impact on existing and new LNG import/export facilities. Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with LNG import/export facilities. This proposed rule would not have an adverse or beneficial impact on small government entities.
The Coast Guard has determined that the proposed rule would have no cost or a cost savings impact on existing and new LHG facilities. Moreover, no not-for-profit organizations are involved with LHG facilities. This proposed rule would not have an adverse or beneficial impact on small government entities.
As noted above, the Coast Guard has determined that the economic impact on the affected small entities is not significant. Thus, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This proposed rule would call for a revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collection, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
For a new LNG import/export facility, the proposed rule would require that it provide information to the Coast Guard at the time the WSA is submitted on the nation of registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting natural gas that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing that facility. The Coast Guard does not expect specific details regarding vessels and their crew would be known at the time the LOI and WSA are submitted to the Coast Guard several years before the facility begins operations. The Paperwork Reduction Act would not apply to this requirement as the Coast Guard anticipates only two new LNG import/export facilities per year would be subject to this requirement.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed revised collection of information to help us determine, among other things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information;
• Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
• How valid our methods are for determining the burden of collection; and
• How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them by the date listed in the
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
The proposed rule, with respect to the LOI, WSA, and ORA submission requirements and COTP approval (§§ 127.007, 127.008, 127.009, 127.015, and 127.017), does not conflict with State interests. They are procedural requirements for the Coast Guard's own safety and security risk analysis, approval, and appeal process of a new, modified, or reactivated facility and its attendant LNG transfer operations. As it relates to other requirements imposed by individual States, or their political subdivisions, the submission and approval process for the construction of a new structure would be unaffected by this rule.
Moreover, with respect to LNG transfer operations that may be included in the LOI, WSA, and ORA submissions, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(1), Congress has expressly authorized the establishment of “procedures, measures and standards for the handling, loading, unloading, storage, stowage and movement on a structure of explosives or other dangerous articles and substances, including oil or hazardous material.” The Coast Guard affirmatively preempts any State rules related to these procedures, measures, and standards (
Regarding the updates of technical standards referenced in 33 CFR part 127, it is Congress's express intent that, with respect to waterfront structures, States retain the power to regulate to higher standards than those promulgated by the Coast Guard. As stated in 46 U.S.C. 70011(c), “State Law.—Nothing in this section, with respect to structures, prohibits a State or political subdivision thereof from prescribing higher safety equipment or safety standards than those that may be prescribed by regulations under this section.” Thus, Congress has made clear that the federal standards promulgated under this section establish the uniform minimum standards of the United States, but individual States are entitled to impose higher safety equipment requirements or higher safety standards for structures within their jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule incorporates by reference the following new voluntary consensus standards, which are listed and summarized below:
• ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and Installations for Supply of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition, 15 January 2015. This standard gives guidance on the minimum requirements for the design and operation of the LNG bunkering (fueling) facility, including the interface between the LNG supply facilities and receiving ships.
• ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December 2010. This standard specifies the requirements for ship, terminal, and port service providers to ensure the safe transit of an LNG carrier through the port area and the safe and efficient transfer of its cargo.
This proposed rule also incorporates the following new technical standard other than a voluntary consensus standard.
• DNV GL, Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development and Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October 2015 Edition. This standard provides guidance to the industry on the developmental, organizational, technical, functional, and operational issues of LNG bunkering (fueling) facilities in order to ensure global compatibility and secure a high level of safety, integrity, and reliability.
This technical standard was selected because it aligns with ISO/TS 18683:2015(E). Both DNVGL-RP-G105 and ISO/TS 18683:2015(E) provide guidance to industry on conducting risk assessments that are focused on providing LNG as a marine fuel (bunkering operations).
This proposed rule incorporates by reference the following updated voluntary consensus standards, which are listed and summarized below:
• API Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September 2015. This standard presents the current state of knowledge and technology in the fields of static electricity and stray currents applicable to the prevention of hydrocarbon ignition in the petroleum industry, which is based on both scientific research and practical experience.
• ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS
• ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, August 30, 2019. This standard contains requirements for piping typically found in petroleum refineries; chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants; and related processing plants and terminals. It covers materials and components, design, fabrication, assembly, erection, examination, inspection, and testing of piping.
• ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Specification for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved May 1, 2015. This standard covers the specifications for the design and manufacture of international shore connections to be used with marine firefighting systems during an emergency when a stricken ship has a system failure.
• IEC 60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 29-1: Gas Detectors—Performance Requirements of Detectors for Flammable Gases, July 2016. This standard specifies general requirements for construction, testing, and performance, and describes the test methods that apply to portable, transportable, and fixed apparatus for the detection and measurement of flammable gas or vapor concentrations with air.
• NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective April 21, 2017. This standard applies to the selection, installation, inspection, maintenance, recharging, and testing of portable extinguishing equipment and Class D extinguishing agents.
• NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition, effective September 6, 2017. This standard applies to the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids, including waste liquids.
• NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019. This standard covers provisions to prevent injury, loss of life, and loss of property from fire or explosion as a result of hot work.
• NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018. This standard provides minimum fire protection, safety, and related requirements for the location, design, construction, security, operation, and maintenance of LNG plants.
• NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016. The provisions of this standard apply to the design, modification, construction,
• NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18, 2005. This standard provides methods of fire tests applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls, partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. This standard also applies to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building.
The proposed section that references these standards and the locations where these standards are available is listed in § 127.003. If you disagree with our analysis of these standards or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment explaining your disagreement or identifying additional standards to the docket using one of the methods listed in the
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 127 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70011 and 70034; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Pub. L. 109-241, sec. 304(c)(2).
The revision and addition reads as follows:
(c) Sections 127.007(b), (c), and (d), and 127.019(b) of subpart A of this part apply to the marine transfer area for LNG of each inactive facility.
(f) Waterfront facilities handling LNG and LHG constructed, expanded, or modified under a contract awarded after November 4, 2020 are required to comply with the applicable standards referenced in § 127.003. All other facilities, unless expanded or modified in accordance with this part, are required to meet previously applicable standards but may request to apply a later edition of the standards in accordance with § 127.017.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Coast Guard must publish a document in the
(a) API, 200 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20001-5571, 202-682-8000,
(1) API Recommended Practice 2003, Protection Against Ignitions Arising Out of Static, Lightning and Stray Currents, Eighth Edition, September 2015, (“API RP 2003”), IBR approved for § 127.1101(h).
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ASME, Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, 800-843-2763,
(1) ASME B16.5-2017, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, NPS
(2) ASME B31.3-2018, Process Piping, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, August 30, 2019, IBR approved for § 127.1101(a).
(c) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500,
(1) ASTM F 1121-87 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Specification for International Shore Connections for Marine Fire Applications, approved May 1, 2015, IBR approved for §§ 127.611 and 127.1511.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) DNV GL, Veritasveien 1, 1363 Hovik, Norway, +47 6757 9900,
(1) DNV GL, Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-G105, Development and Operation of Liquefied Natural Gas Bunkering Facilities, October 2015 Edition, IBR approved for § 127.008(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(e) IEC International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de Varembe, 1st floor, P.O. Box 131, CH 1211, Switzerland, +41 22 919 02 11,
(1) IEC 60079-29-1, Edition 2.0, Explosive Atmospheres—Part 29-1: Gas Detectors—Performance Requirements of Detectors for Flammable Gases, July 2016, IBR approved for § 127.1203(a).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) ISO-International Organization for Standardization, BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 11,
(1) ISO/TS 18683:2015(E), Guidelines for Systems and Installations for Supply of LNG as Fuel to Ships, First Edition,
(2) ISO/TS 28460:2010(E), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Installation and Equipment for Liquefied Natural Gas—Ship-to-Shore Interface and Port Operations, First Edition, 15 December 2010, (“ISO 28460”), IBR approved for § 127.008(e).
(g) NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 800-344-3555,
(1) NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2018 Edition, effective April 21, 2017, IBR approved for §§ 127.603(a) and 127.1503.
(2) NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2018 Edition, effective September 6, 2017, IBR approved for §§ 127.313(b) and 127.1313(b).
(3) NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2019 Edition, effective July 15, 2019, IBR approved for §§ 127.405(b) and 127.1405(b).
(4) NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), 2019 Edition, effective November 25, 2018, IBR approved for §§ 127.008(d), 127.101 introductory text, and (a) through (g), 127.201(b) and (c), 127.405(a) and (b), and 127.603(a).
(5) NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 2017 Edition, effective August 24, 2016, IBR approved for §§ 127.107(a) and (c), 127.201(c), and 127.1107.
(6) NFPA 251, Standard Methods for Tests of Fire Resistance of Building Construction and Materials, 2006 Edition, effective August 18, 2005, IBR approved for § 127.005.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where the construction or expansion would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. The LOI must meet the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) An owner or operator intending to reactivate an inactive facility must submit an LOI that meets paragraph (c) of this section to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is located.
(e) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG or LHG facility, or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand marine terminal operations in any facility handling LNG or LHG, where the construction or expansion would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a facility, must file or update as appropriate a waterway suitability assessment (WSA) with the COTP of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. The WSA must consist of a Preliminary WSA and a Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request additional information during review of the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on WSA.
(g) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG facility must submit the preliminary WSA no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 or 157. The LOI must include the nation of registry for, and the nationality or citizenship of the officers and crew serving on board, vessels transporting LNG that are reasonably anticipated to be servicing the LNG facility.
(j) An owner or operator intending to construct a new LNG fuel facility or modify any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility may comply with § 127.008 in lieu of meeting the requirements in this section.
(a) An owner or operator intending to build a new LNG fuel facility, modify construction of any LNG fuel facility, or reactivate an inactive LNG fuel facility electing to complete an operational risk assessment in lieu of a WSA as outlined in § 127.007, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) and an operational risk assessment to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the LNG fuel facility is or will be located at least 1 year prior to the start of LNG transfer operations.
(b) Each LOI must contain the information in § 127.007(c)(1) through (5).
(c) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraph (a) of this section must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of the following:
(1) There is any change in the information submitted under paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) No LNG fuel transfer operations are scheduled within the next 12 months.
(d) The operational risk assessment required by paragraph (a) must:
(1) Be carried out in accordance with Chapter 7 of ISO 18683:2015(E) and Appendix D of DNVGL-RP-G105; or Chapter 19 of NFPA 59A (all incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); or other industry developed risk assessment method acceptable to the Office of Operating and Environmental Standards, Commandant (CG-OES); and
(2) Consider possible factors affecting the ship/shore interface and port operations described in Section 6 of ISO 28460:2010(E) (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
(a) After the COTP receives the information and analyses required by § 127.007 or § 127.008, the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG
(1) Information submitted under §§ 127.007 or 127.008;
(c) * * *
(1) Appeal that ruling in writing to the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, (CG-5P), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; and
(d) The Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy issues a ruling after reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph (c) of this section, which is final agency action.
(a) The COTP may allow alternative procedures, methods, or equipment standards, including alternatives to standards listed in § 127.003, to be used by an operator instead of any requirements in this part if—
The marine transfer area for LNG must meet the following criteria in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003):
(a) Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.7;
(b) Chapter 6, Section 6.7;
(c) Chapter 10;
(d) Chapter 11, except Sections 11.9, and 11.10;
(e) Chapter 12;
(f) Chapter 15, except Sections 15.4 and 15.6; and
(g) Annex B.
(a) The electrical power system must have a power source and a separate emergency power source, so that failure of one source does not affect the capability of the other source. The system must meet NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
(c) If an auxiliary generator is used as an emergency power source, it must meet Section 700.12 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
(b) * * *
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
(c) * * *
(1) Be in each enclosed or covered Class I, Division 1, hazardous location defined in section 500.5(B)(1) of NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003) and each area in which flammable or combustible material is stored; and
(2) Meet section 16.4 of NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
The operator must ensure that—
(a) * * *
(1) The equipment continues to meet the applicable requirements in this subpart and in NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); and
(b) Welding is done in accordance with NFPA 51B and Section 10.4.3 of NFPA 59A (both incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
(a) Portable fire extinguishers that meet section 16.6.1 of NFPA 59A and Chapter 6 of NFPA 10 (both incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Idaho (Idaho or the State) that addresses the
Written comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0001 at
Claudia Vaupel at (206) 553-6121, or
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2 portions of the State of Idaho's December 24, 2015 SIP submission because, based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking, the State demonstrated that Idaho will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO
Although SO
In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO
As discussed in section III of this this document, the EPA reviewed Idaho's analysis to assess how it evaluated SO
On December 24, 2015, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to the EPA documenting that its SIP contains provisions that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 SO
Idaho conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO
Based on the weight of evidence analysis, Idaho concluded that emissions within the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO
The EPA reviewed SO
We also reviewed the most recent certified air quality data available for 1-hour SO
We reviewed
As discussed previously, Idaho analyzed potential impacts to the Billings, Montana area, which was still designated nonattainment at the time of Idaho's submission. The EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO
The data presented in Table 2 of this document show that 2017-2019 1-hour SO
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Idaho in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed Idaho and neighboring state point sources that emit 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO
There are four sources in Idaho that emit 100 tpy of SO
The Naughton Generating Plant in Lincoln, Wyoming, is the closest neighboring state source to P4 Production and Itafos Conda. The EPA has therefore assessed potential SO
The EPA also reviewed the location of neighboring state sources that emit 100 tpy of SO
On January 19, 2017, the EPA determined that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were eligible to be treated in the same manner as an affected downwind state for purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126.
The Fort Hall Reservation is located in southeastern Idaho, mostly on the high, flat, cultivated east banks of the Snake River Plain which average around 4,500 feet above sea level. The east portion of the Reservation rests on the northern reaches of the Pocatello range of mountains. The Fort Hall Reservation is bordered on the east and south by the rugged rocky hills of the Pocatello, Chesterfield, and Caribou mountain ranges. These ranges run north-south with peaks rising from 6,000 to 9,000 feet above sea level, generally east and south of the Reservation.
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data, particularly near the Fort Hall Reservation borders, for any monitoring sites with elevated SO
These air
As discussed previously, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Idaho in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources with SO
The J.R. Simplot Company—Don Siding Pocatello plant (Simplot Don Siding Plant), in Pocatello, Idaho, is the closest SO
The EPA reviewed data from the meteorological station at the Pocatello Regional Airport, which is approximately 6 km west of the Simplot Don Siding Plant. Prevailing winds are from the southwest with an average speed of 4.2 meters per second. Given the close distance of the Pocatello SO
In addition to reviewing the 2009-2011 regional scale SO
The EPA also assessed potential SO
As shown in Table 7 of this document, these sources are approximately 38 km from the Fort Hall Reservation. The closest SO
With a 38 km transport distance over complex, rugged terrain, and the low monitored SO
The EPA has reviewed SO
We are proposing to conclude that, based on our review of the Idaho submission and our supplemental evaluation, Idaho's SIP meets the prong 1 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for purposes of the 2010 SO
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO
Based on our review of the EPA's emissions trends data, as shown in Table 1 of this document, SO
The EPA notes that existing sources are subject to the control requirements in the Idaho SIP discussed in our prong 1 evaluation, and any future new and modified stationary sources of SO
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Idaho's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we have reviewed information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for our interstate transport prong 1 analysis. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO
The EPA is proposing to approve the December 24, 2015 Idaho SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes concerning the EPA's action on this SIP submission in a letter dated March 7, 2018. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or “District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from large coating operations for wood products. We are proposing to approve the rescission of a local rule from the California SIP that is no longer needed to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the “Act”). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0364 at
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the SDAPCD and approved by the EPA. SDAPCD repealed this rule from its local rulebook on June 27, 2012, and, in a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) dated July 24, 2012, the District requested that CARB petition the EPA to repeal the rule from the California SIP.
On September 4, 2015, the submittal for the rescission of the SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 67.11.1 was adopted to meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under CAA section 182. The purpose of Rule 67.11.1 was to limit VOC emissions from wood products coating operations, including emissions from equipment cleaning, that are greater than or equal to 25 tons per calendar year. The SDAPCD adopted, and retains in its rulebook, another SIP-approved rule, Rule 67.11
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) for our proposed rule action has more information about both of these rules and the State's request that Rule 67.11.1 be rescinded from the California SIP.
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant CAA criteria for stringency, and complies with restrictions on relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements in effect before November 15, 1990.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. “Control Techniques Guidelines: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.” EPA 453/R-96-007, April 1996.
We have concluded that SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 is appropriate for rescission, given that the wood furniture manufacturing source category continues to be regulated by the SDAPCD's Rule 67.11, which has been approved by the EPA into the California SIP, and which we have determined is as stringent as, or more stringent than Rule 67.11.1, as detailed in the TSD supporting this proposed rule action.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to approve the rescission of Rule 67.11.1 from the San Diego portion of the California SIP because it is no longer needed to meet any CAA requirement and because rescission would not interfere with RFP or attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until November 4, 2020. If we take final action to approve the rule rescission, our final action will rescind this rule from the federally enforceable SIP.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is proposing to remove SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as described in Table 1 of this preamble from the California State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Surface Transportation Board.
Request for comment in rulemaking proceeding.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB) seeks public comment on a new approach its Office of Economics has developed for possible use in considering class exemption and revocation issues.
Initial comments are due on or before December 4, 2020. Replies to initial comments are due on or before January 4, 2021.
Comments and replies may be filed with the Board via e-filing and will be posted to the Board's website at
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
On March 23, 2016, the Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on its proposal to revoke the existing class exemptions under 49 CFR part 1039 for (1) crushed or broken stone or rip rap; (2) hydraulic cement; (3) coke produced from coal; (4) primary iron or steel products; and (5) iron or steel scrap, wastes, or tailings.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, available at
49 U.S.C. 10502 and 13301.
Agricultural commodities, Intermodal transportation, Railroads.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 4, 2020 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a fee of $290 to be charged for the 2021 tariff-rate quota (TRQ) year for each license issued to a person or firm by the Department of Agriculture authorizing the importation of certain dairy articles, which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States.
October 5, 2020.
Abdelsalam El-Farra, Import Programs, Multilateral Affairs, Trade Policy and Geographic Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1070, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1070; by phone: (202) 720-9439 or by email at:
The Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.36 provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles that are subject to TRQs set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The use of such licenses is monitored by the Import Program within the Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) provides that a fee will be charged for each license issued to a person or firm by the Licensing Authority to defray the Department of Agriculture's costs of
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also provides that the Licensing Authority will announce the annual fee for each license and that such fee will be set out in a notice to be published in the
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the fee for each license issued to a person or firm for the 2021 calendar year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, will be $290 per license.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of funds availability.
Rural Utilities Services (RUS), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces the availability of up to $5 million in competitive grants to eligible entities to fund a new pilot program. This pilot program, called the Technical Assistance and Training for Innovative Regional Wastewater Treatment Solutions (TAT/RWTS) Grant Pilot Program, was authorized by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, for the study and design of innovative treatment solutions of regional wastewater systems for historically impoverished communities that have had difficulty installing traditional wastewater treatment systems due to soil conditions.
Applications for TAT/RWTS grant(s) must be submitted electronically through
Authority: This solicitation is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 16 U.S.C. 1005; and Division B, Title VII General Provisions, Section 783 of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Pub. L. 116-94).
Wastewater systems are basic and vital to both health and economic development. With environmentally sound waste disposal, rural communities can attract families and businesses that will invest in the community and improve the quality of life for all residents. Without safe and clean wastewater facilities, communities cannot sustain economic development or ensure the mitigation of health risks that can arise from poor sanitation.
USDA's Rural Development Agencies, comprising the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RB-CS), and Rural Housing Service (RHS), are leading the way in helping rural America improve the quality of life and increase the economic opportunities for rural people. RUS provides financing for much-needed infrastructure or infrastructure improvements to rural communities, which includes Water and Environmental Programs (WEP). WEP provides the technical assistance and financing necessary to develop, improve, and operate drinking water and waste disposal systems. Safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems are vital to public health, and to the economic vitality of rural America. WEP is proud to be the only federal program exclusively focused on the water and waste infrastructure needs of rural communities with populations of 10,000 or less. Additionally, WEP provides funding to organizations that provide technical assistance and training to rural communities to support water and waste activities and is administered through National Office staff in Washington, DC, and a network of field staff in each state.
On December 20, 2019, Congress passed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, which established a pilot program, the Technical Assistance and Training for Innovative Regional Wastewater Treatment Solutions (TAT/RWTS) Grant Pilot Program, to assist communities with wastewater systems. Specifically, Congress was concerned about raw sewage discharge in some rural communities, particularly historically impoverished communities that have had difficulty utilizing Rural Development programs. Rural Development was directed to develop a program to solve untreated raw sewage
Qualified regional consortiums will receive TAT/RWTS grant funds to identify and evaluate economically feasible, innovative regional solutions to wastewater treatment concerns for historically impoverished communities in areas which have had difficulty installing traditional wastewater treatment systems due to soil conditions. Grants are for wastewater-related technical assistance, including such services as feasibility studies, preliminary design assistance and supervision, oversight, or training for the development of an application for financial assistance.
Grantees will be expected to provide the Agency with a detailed report to include the area to be served, the issues with the present method of wastewater discharge, the alternatives and innovative solutions to the wastewater issue, the long-term cost and effect of the solution, the affordability including possible funding sources, potential treatment, staff training needs, and lifecycle cost analysis.
Under the TAT/RWTS Grant Pilot Program, up to $5 million is made available to eligible applicants, to remain available until expended.
The number of awards will depend on the number of eligible applicants and the total amount of requested funds. The Agency intends/expects to make approximately 2-3 awards in this fiscal year, to remain available until expended.
Awards to successful applicants will be in the form of grants, for up to 100 percent of total eligible project costs, but not to exceed $5 million, whichever is less.
The terms and conditions provided in this Notice of Solicitation of Application (NOSA) are applicable to and for purposes of this NOSA only. Unless otherwise provided in the award documents, all financial terms not defined herein shall have the meaning as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Regional consortia located in the United States and its territories may apply for this grant program. Eligible entities would include a consortium of regional institutions of higher education, academic health and research institutes, or economic development entities located in the region identified to be served that have experience in addressing these issues in the region. The consortium must include a regional university, or the proposed scope of work must include coordinating with a regional university, to solve untreated raw sewage issues with innovative technologies and strategic management and regulatory models.
Applicants must include all proposed activity under a single application. Application requirements and other important information is available at
An applicant is eligible to apply for the TAT/RWTS grant if it:
(1) Is a consortium (as defined in the definitions section of this notice);
(2) Is legally established and located within one of the following:
(a) A state within the United States;
(b) The District of Columbia;
(c) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; or
(d) A United States territory;
(3) Has the legal capacity and authority to carry out the grant purpose;
(4) Has no delinquent debt to the federal government or no outstanding judgments to repay a federal debt;
(5) Demonstrates that it possesses the financial, technical, and managerial capability to comply with federal and state laws and requirements; and,
(6) Is not a corporation that has been convicted of a felony (or had an officer or agent acting on behalf of the corporation convicted of a felony) within the past 24 months. Any corporation that has any unpaid federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability is not eligible.
The goal of the TAT/RWTS Grant Pilot Program is to find regional solutions to longstanding wastewater treatment problems where soil conditions make traditional wastewater
Eligible Project Costs are those costs defined in Section III. Grant funds must be used to identify and evaluate innovative regional solutions to wastewater treatment solutions for historically impoverished communities in areas which have had difficulty installing traditional wastewater treatment systems due to soil conditions.
The work product must be related to the purpose above and be related to a proposed project that meets the following requirements:
(1) MUST be regional in scope; and be for one of the following:
(2) To construct, enlarge, extend or otherwise improve rural wastewater facilities; or
(3) To construct or relocate public buildings, roads, bridges, fences, or utilities; and to make other public improvements necessary for the successful operation or protection of facilities authorized in paragraph (2) of this section; or
(4) To relocate private buildings, roads, bridges, fences, or utilities, and to make other private improvements necessary for the successful operation or protection of facilities authorized in paragraph (2) of this section.
Grant funds may not be used to:
(1) Fund political or lobbying activities;
(2) Pay for work already completed;
(3) Purchase real estate or vehicles, improve or renovate office space, or repair and maintain privately owned property;
(4) Construct or furnish a building;
(5) Intervene in the federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings;
(6) Sue the Federal Government or any other government entities;
(7) Pay for any other costs that are not allowable under 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400;
(8) Make contributions or donations to others;
(9) Fund projects that duplicate technical assistance given to implement action plans under the National Forest Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6613). Applicants cannot receive both grants made under this part and grants that the Forest Service makes to implement the action plans for five continuous years from the date of grant approval by the Forest Services;
(10) To pay an outstanding judgment obtained by the United States in a Federal Court (other than in the United States Tax Court), which has been recorded. An applicant will be ineligible to receive a grant until the judgment is paid in full or otherwise satisfied; and
(11) Any project that creates a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Applications must be submitted electronically using
You must submit your application electronically through
To apply electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all application documents electronically through
After applying electronically through
(1)
(a) Standard Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number. You must also provide your SAM Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding. In accordance with OMB Memoranda M-20-26, the Agency can accept an application without an active SAM registration. However, the registration must be completed before an award is made. Current registrants in SAM with active registrations expiring before May 16, 2020 will be afforded a one-time extension of 60 days.
(b) Form SF-424A, “Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package. You no longer must complete the Form SF 424B, “Assurances Non-Construction Programs” as a part of your application. This information is now collected through your registration or annual recertification in
(c) Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;”
(d) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (if applicable, applicant must include approved cost agreement rate schedule);
(e) Certification regarding Forest Service grant; and
(2)
(a) Evidence of applicant's legal existence and authority;
(b) Evidence of tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
(c) A short statement of applicant's experience in providing services similar to those proposed;
(d) A brief description of successfully completed projects including the need that was identified and objectives accomplished;
(e) The latest financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work;
(f) A list of proposed services to be provided;
(g) An estimated breakdown of costs (direct and indirect) including those to be funded by grantee as well as other
(h) Evidence that a financial management system is in place or proposed;
(i) A description of the type of technical assistance to be provided and the tasks to be contracted;
(j) A description of how the effectiveness and results of the proposed TAT/RWTS project will be measured;
(k) Number of personnel on staff or to be contracted to provide the service and their experience with similar projects;
(l) A statement indicating the maximum number of months it would take to complete the project; and
(m) Explanation of the cost effectiveness of the project.
(3)
The proposal will outline the project in sufficient detail to provide a reader with a clear understanding of how the proposed TAT/RWTS project will address the technical assistance needs of RUS eligible sewer utilities in historically impoverished communities in areas which have had difficulty installing traditional wastewater treatment systems due to soil conditions.
(4)
(a) Debarment and suspension information is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. The section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with a Federal agency?” located at 2 CFR 180.335. It is part of OMB's Guidance for Grants and Agreements concerning Government-wide Debarment and Suspension.
(b) All of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Governmentwide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.
(c) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards).
(d) 2 CFR part 182 (Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)) and 2 CFR part 421 (Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)).
(e) Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d)), you are required to do the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. In accordance with OMB Memoranda M-20-26, the Agency can accept an application without an active SAM registration. However, the registration must be completed before an award is made. Current registrants in SAM with active registrations expiring before May 16, 2020 will be afforded a one-time extension of 60 days. Please refer to Section F for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.
In order to be considered for funding, applications must be received by the specified date in the
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This E.O. requires that federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with state and local governments. Many states have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of states that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website:
(1)
(a) 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil Rights compliance includes, but is not limited to the following:
(i) Collect and maintain data provided by ultimate recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure that ultimate recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
(b) The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, and 7 CFR 1901, subpart E;
(b) 2 CFR parts 200 and 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), or any successor regulations;
(c) Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to
(d) Federal Obligation Certification on Delinquent Debt.
All applications that are complete and eligible will be scored and ranked competitively. The categories for scoring criteria used are the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a) Eligible and selected for funding;
(b) Eligible and offered fewer funds than requested;
(c) Eligible but not selected for funding; or
(d) Ineligible for the grant.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a) SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be completed by the grantee and submitted to the National Office along with the work product.
(b) Upon receipt of a properly completed SF-270, payment will ordinarily be made within 30 days.
(c) Any change in the scope of the project, budget adjustments of more than 10 percent of the total budget, or any other significant change in the project must be reported to and approved by the approving official by written amendment to the Grant Agreement. Any change not approved may be cause for termination of the grant.
In order to be considered for funds, complete applications must be received by the deadline specified in the
(1)
(a) The applicant will be notified and given the option to lower the grant request and accept the remaining funds. If the applicant agrees to lower the grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(b) If two or more applications have the same priority score, both applicants will be notified and given the option to lower the grant requests and accept the remaining funds. If an applicant agrees to lower its grant request, the applicant must certify that the purposes of the project will be met and provide the remaining total funds needed to complete the project.
(2)
(3)
(1) TAT/RWTS grants will be administered in accordance with Departmental Regulations, and as otherwise specified in this Notice.
(2) Applicants selected for funding will receive a signed notice of Federal award containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
(3) Applicants not selected for funding will be notified in writing and informed of any review and appeal rights. Awards to successfully appealed applications will be limited to available funding.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2.
In addition, all recipients of federal financial assistance are required to report information about first tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Execution of an agency approved Grant Agreement.
• Acceptance of a written Letter of Conditions.
• Submission of Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Submission of Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
You no longer must complete the following forms for acceptance of a federal award. This information is now collected through your registration or annual recertification in SAM.gov in the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations section:
• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”
• Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.”
Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved.
(1) SF-269 “Financial Status Report (short form)” and a project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis, due 30 days after the end of each quarter.
(2) A final project performance report will be required with the last SF-269 due 90 days after the end of the last quarter in which the project is completed. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report.
(3) All grantees are to submit an original of each report to the National Office. The project performance reports should detail, in a narrative format, activities that have transpired for the specific time period.
(4) The grantee will provide an audit report or financial statements in accordance with Uniform Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.
For further information, contact: Lois East: telephone (660) 492-4268, email:
The Information Collection and Recordkeeping requirements contained in this rule have been approved by an emergency clearance under OMB Control Number 0572-NEW. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), RUS invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). RUS invites comments on any aspect of this collection of information including suggestions for reducing the burden. Comments may be submitted regarding this information collection by the following method:
•
Copies of all forms, regulations, and instructions referenced in this NOSA may be obtained from RUS. Data furnished by the applicants will be used to determine eligibility for program benefits. Furnishing the data is voluntary; however, the failure to provide data could result in program benefits being withheld or denied.
The Information Collection and Recordkeeping requirements contained in this NOFA have been approved by an emergency clearance under OMB Control Number 0572-NEW. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), RUS invites comments on this information collection for which the agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by December 4, 2020. Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is
Grantees will be expected to provide the Agency with a detailed report to include the area to be served, the issues with the present method of wastewater discharge, the alternatives and innovative solutions to the wastewater issue, the long-term cost and effect of the solution, the affordability including possible funding sources, potential treatment, staff training needs, and lifecycle cost analysis.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Regulatory Division Team 2, Rural Development Innovation Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Stop 1522, Washington, DC 20250. Phone: 202-720-7853.
All responses to this information collection and recordkeeping notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, reprisal and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familiar or parental status, religion, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint, please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us directly by mail or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information, (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Pidilite Industries Limited (Pidilite) a producer/exporter of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the Republic of India (India) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
Applicable October 5, 2020.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the order is CVP 23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-30-1, with the chemical name of
All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Based on the comments received from interested parties, Commerce made no changes to the subsidy rate calculations since the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), Commerce determines the following net countervailable subsidy rate for Pidilite for the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017:
Because Commerce made no changes to the subsidy rate calculations since the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Pidilite and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, at the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the subsidy rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice; final determination.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have taken collaborative action to provide national uniformity in the measurement of length. This notice announces the final decision to deprecate use of the “U.S. survey foot” on December 31, 2022. Beginning on January 1, 2023, the U.S. survey foot should not be used and will be superseded by the “international foot” definition (
Use of the U.S. survey foot will be deprecated on December 31, 2022.
All comments submitted in response to the October 17, 2019,
On October 17, 2019, NIST and NOAA published a notice titled “Deprecation of the United States (U.S.) Survey Foot” in the
After December 31, 2022, any data derived from or published as a result of surveying, mapping, or any other activity within the U.S. that is expressed in terms of feet should only be based on the definition of one foot being equal to 0.3048 meter (exactly). This definition was named the “international foot” in the 1959
With this notice, the mandate to replace the U.S. survey foot with the international foot definition for all applications has been achieved, and after December 31, 2022, there will be only one approved definition of the foot in the U.S. The preferred term is simply the “foot,” which is the name currently used for most applications. When needed to avoid confusion with the U.S. survey foot, use of the term “international foot” is an acceptable synonym for “foot.”
The date of December 31, 2022, was selected to accompany the modernization of the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) by NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The reason for associating the deprecation of the U.S. survey foot with the modernization of the NSRS is that the biggest impact of the uniform adoption of the international foot will be for users of the NSRS, due to very large coordinate values currently given in U.S. survey feet in many areas of the U.S. Impacts related to the change to international feet will be minimized if a transition occurs concurrently with others changes in the NSRS. More details on the relationship between the NSRS and deprecating the U.S. survey foot were provided in the previous notices, and are discussed further later in this notice. This approach provides ample time for the surveying and mapping community to plan for and implement related changes.
Modernization of the NSRS was originally planned to occur in 2022. However, operational, workforce, and other issues have arisen causing NGS to re-evaluate the timing of implementation (see
In the October 17, 2019, notice, NIST and NOAA requested comments from all interested persons on the announced changes by December 2, 2019. Seventy-two comments were received in response to that notice. The comments received, and this final determination, are available online at the “Regulations.gov” website (
Because the solicitation did not directly ask for comments in support of or in opposition to the planned change, an opinion regarding support or opposition was not provided in all of the comments. Of the 72 responses received, 64 (89 percent) offered such an opinion. Thirty-four of those 64 comments (53 percent) expressed support for universal adoption of the international foot. Twenty-one (33 percent) expressed a desire to retain the U.S. survey foot, either for surveying and mapping exclusively, or to replace the international foot for all applications. Nine (14 percent) preferred eliminating both definitions of the foot and instead adopting the meter as the length measurement unit used in surveying and mapping. Additional public feedback from sources outside this public comment process, but related to NGS U.S. survey foot outreach
Only four comments were anonymous. Of the 68 commenters who provided their names, 28 also identified one or more organization affiliation. These consisted of at least one state or county government agency in ten states, six professional or business associations, one university, and 13 private companies.
The comments received included statements of support from representatives of state government agencies in eight states (
The remainder of supportive comments were from individuals, mostly surveyors, who agreed that the U.S. survey foot should be discontinued. About half of these individuals identified either their employer or the organization they represented. The overall theme that emerged from public comments was that discontinuing use of the U.S. survey foot enhances the value and benefit of national uniformity and minimizes opportunities for confusion and unnecessary costs to the users, states, and professionals in the surveying, mapping, and engineering fields. The following comment excerpts exemplify the reasons for supporting the change.
The elimination of the U.S. survey foot is past due, and the best time to implement this change is now, during development of the State Plane Coordinate System of 2022 (SPCS2022) as part of the NSRS modernization. For example:
“We badly need to get rid of this confusing dual definition of feet and join with the other five countries (or at least those that have not fully converted to metric yet) in that 1959 decision to have a single, common definition of the yard [and foot] and pound—the sooner, the better. Let's not allow survey feet as an option for SPCS2022 output, so as to avoid dragging this out years into the future.”
“The U.S. survey foot should be eliminated. Hard to convert to meters and back. A standard international foot will be easier to deal with. With the change in datums in 2022 it is the perfect time to eliminate it. Here in Michigan we use the international foot and it works fine except that some federal agencies report their state plane coordinates in U.S. survey feet. End the confusion I say.”
“Having the country using only one definition of the foot for survey and mapping not only makes good sense, it will [eliminate] the possibility of the unintended error [that] currently happens due to the dual foot definitions. The timing of a single foot standard coinciding with the 2022 readjustment is prudent and well planned.”
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, a large majority of surveyors are employed in the “Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services” industry, which includes international, national, regional, and small firms. A substantial number also work for government agencies and in the construction sector. Many surveyors are licensed in more than one state, and large projects often include surveyors and other geospatial professionals from multiple states. The ability to efficiently work in multiple states and across borders increases the scope of revenue. The benefits of having a single definition for the foot for all states are anticipated to outweigh the inconveniences associated with this change. For example:
“I am in strong agreement with this decision. Having worked for a consultant with offices in both U.S. and International foot states, this created real headaches when staff from different offices were working on the same projects.”
“For many years I worked in multiple states and it was clear that many surveyors did not know with which definition of the foot they were working. The confusion was not always evident until there were blunders related to construction elements. These can be costly. I agree with the proposal and say good riddance to the ratio.”
“No one need look any further than the infamous Mars Climate Orbiter failure to understand why this action is vital to eliminating confusion brought about by having multiple choices between systems of measure. While the probe failure resulted from inadvertent confusion between two systems (metric vs U.S.), this issue is even more insidious given once there is an awareness for making a unit conversion the process is further complicated by the ambiguity created when multiple conversion factors are present (International foot vs. U.S. Survey foot in this case). To allow this condition to persist when it is no longer necessary would be considered intentional neglect by any objective standard.”
Many small businesses in the United States will benefit from this change. Although surveyors and other geospatial professionals work for organizations that vary greatly in size, many are independent contractors or consultants who work for small firms or are self-employed. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), an advocate of small and independent American business owners, expressed support for the change:
“NFIB [National Federation of Independent Business] is an incorporated nonprofit association with about 300,000 small and independent business members across America. NFIB protects and advances the ability of Americans to own, operate, and grow their businesses and, in particular, ensures that the governments of the United States and the fifty states hear the voice of small business as they formulate public policies. Many businesses, including small businesses, depend upon accurate weights and measures in their commerce. . . The move to a “foot” with a single length everywhere and for all purposes in the U.S. will facilitate commerce, public safety, and national defense.”
Public comments highlighted significant errors and costs that have resulted from two definitions of the foot in use within the surveying and mapping community. Several comments addressed examples based on their professional experiences:
“I am employed by a commercial contractor working on a government project in which there was confusion about 3 years ago when a simulation program noticeably deviated from real data because one used survey feet and the other used international feet. The time lost to track down the deviation was significant.”
“A roadway alignment is surveyed in international feet using a low distortion projection and laid onto a global image under the assumption the survey is the U.S. foot definition. Locally all alignment points fit well vs. record distance and bearings. However, when cast onto the global image map the roadway alignment is 12 feet north and 45 feet east of the roadway on the image. The roadway construction plans that use global aerial images as a background cannot be completed until the surveyed line work is in coincidence with the global image.”
“I one hundred percent support the deprecation of the U.S. Survey Foot as a unit of measure. Having two “feet” has cost my company and countless others untold amounts of lost time due to errors and confusion associated with two separate definitions of the foot.”
Because multiple comments disclosed generic examples of errors and the resulting negative impacts during the notice process, NGS took action to seek additional examples from the stakeholder community to further explore the risk. The action consisted of poll questions asked during webinars and providing an email address specifically for input (
For example, one comment included an image from engineering plans showing both definitions of the foot, with the State Plane coordinates in U.S. survey feet redacted, so that it was not possible to determine its actual location. NGS took additional action to clarify this submission, which was further described in subsequent email correspondence:
“[The image is from a] facility drawing for an industrial plant, where the plant coordinates are in international feet yet the State Plane coordinates of the same points on the same plans were in U.S. survey feet. And yet the plant coordinates are forced to be identical to the State Plane coordinates at one location, where the State Plane easting was over 2,600,000 sft, which causes more than 5 feet of positional error.”
Comments highlighted that this measurement unit change is like past changes that dealt with legacy infrastructure and data. With planning and retention of unit conversion factors, as published by NIST, the outcome will be successful. For example:
“Many of our older records and plans will not be impacted by using one definition over another because their projection basis is not global but local and many times completely unknown and irrelevant. There will always be legacy records that use [the] U.S. foot just as there are legacy records that use the chain unit, rod, perch, etc. Those who deal with various units of measure will handle the conversions just as they do now if needed.”
“Ending the use of the U.S. Survey Foot for state plane coordinate systems is long overdue. Definitions and conversion factors need to be clear and concise without ambiguity.”
“The argument some make that deeds from U.S. foot states would need to be translated into international foot distances is weak—there's only 0.01 ft difference in one mile between the two! How many surveyors who make this claim are accounting for the different accuracy/precision of equipment when the original deeds where surveyed or the various measurement errors present in all equipment?”
“I favor the elimination of the Survey foot. I would note that since 1983 USCGS (now NGS) has allowed states to designate whether they use the Survey or International foot in surveying and use in their State Plane Coordinate Systems. The two feet, so close in value, cause a lot of confusion.”
Of the 17 public comments that expressed an opinion on the name of the foot after deprecation, 14 favored retaining “international” as part of the name, rather than simply calling it the “foot.” In all cases, the reason was to avoid confusion between the types of foot, both for legacy and future applications. For example:
“Due to all of the historical data held by Federal, State and local government agencies as well as private firms, I feel it will be a mistake to refer to the International Foot as simply Foot. There is already a problem with GIS professionals as well as surveyors not documenting datums and units for projects adequately. By removing the reminder of which foot new data is presented in, it opens up the possibility of further confusion.”
“I believe to avoid confusion that upon deprecating the use of the term U.S. Survey Foot that we go on to use the terminology of International Foot. My reason is people reference the U.S. survey foot as a foot. I think that the use of International Foot will signify a change is being made. I work with legal descriptions in a state that adopted the U.S. Survey Foot and will have to change. If we don't differentiate there will be confusion. My fear is that simply saying you are adopting the foot will not resonate and may lead some to believe that they can continue to use the U.S. Survey Foot. Over time the international foot will be referred to as a foot again but for technical purposes I think that the differentiation is important. At a minimum officially stating the U.S. Survey Foot will be superseded by the international foot will work. People will casually reference it as a foot anyway.”
“To use a term such as “the foot” is inconsistent with efforts to minimize ambiguities in Surveying documents. If there is more than one version of something, then which version is being referred to should be made clear.”
The initial request for public comment noted that states currently have the option to select the International System of Units (SI), commonly known as the metric system, option for surveying and mapping; NGS adopted the metric system in 1977 (54 FR 25318). Although the notice did not request public input regarding state adoption of the metric option for surveying and mapping, several comments expressed this preference. For example:
“Rather than deprecating the U.S. Survey foot, I would rather see the United States deprecate the use of the foot altogether for survey measurements and adopt the meter as the unit of measure.”
“The native measurement unit used by modern land surveying equipment is the meter. Additional software is required to deal with our two archaic units of measurement. On December 31, 2022 the foot, in all of its iterations, should be relegated to legacy status.”
A minority of public comments expressed opposition to the change and identified several concerns that will be addressed in the deprecation process. The two primary reasons given for supporting retention of the U.S. survey foot were that a large amount of legacy data and records in that unit already exist, and that a majority of states have legislated or otherwise adopted it for surveying.
Some opposing comments cited erroneous or misleading information, or made claims for which no supporting evidence was provided, such as conflating the change with conversion to the metric system; stating that the U.S. survey foot has always been used for defining boundaries in the U.S.; that adopting the international foot would jeopardize rights to real property; that the change would be a financial burden; and that it creates a problem where none exists.
All comments opposed to the change were from individuals, except for one trade association, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). The IOGP represents 83 member organizations that include energy corporations and related associations. Writing on behalf of its U.S. members, IOGP advocated to instead adopt the U.S. survey foot nationwide, because of its widespread current and historic use in the surveying community.
Considered collectively, the opposing comments recommended to instead pursue one of the following three alternatives: 1) keep the current approach, where each state chooses its preferred definition of the foot; 2) adopt the U.S. survey foot for all geospatial applications, and the international foot for everything else; and 3) deprecate the international foot and use the U.S. survey foot for everything. These alternatives, together with the reasons given for opposing adoption of the international foot, are addressed later in this notice.
During planned outreach efforts, described in the October 17, 2019, notice, additional stakeholder feedback was received. NGS presented two webinars on deprecating the U.S. survey foot. The first was on April 25, 2019, “Fate of the U.S. Survey Foot after 2022: A Conversation with NGS,” and the second was on December 12, 2019, “Putting the Best `Foot' Forward: Ending the Era of the U.S. Survey Foot.” Both webinars were recorded and are available for download (
Significant feedback occurred during the two NGS webinar events, which were attended by nearly 1,400 unique participants from every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Canada. Webinar polls reinforced the public comments obtained through the notice process. Figures 1 through 4 summarize feedback from the public comment process, webinar participants, and emails sent directly to NGS and NIST (with the number from each source given in the figures). Figure 1 reveals that about twice as many of the 540 respondents (63 versus 33 percent) have experienced problems due to the existence of the two definitions of the foot. This is a striking result that illustrates the impact of this problem.
In terms of solving the foot confusion problem, Figure 2 shows that a much larger proportion (58 percent of 730 respondents) prefer adopting the international foot, compared to 20 percent in favor of keeping the U.S. survey foot, which is slightly less than the number who prefer using meters (22 percent).
When respondents were asked which name they prefer for the foot after deprecation, 39 percent of the 634 respondents preferred retaining the name “international foot” as shown in Figure 3, rather than just “foot” (32 percent), or allowing the use of both names (16 percent). Only a small proportion (9 percent) felt that an entirely new name should be used. Combining the preference for the name “foot” and allowing both names represents 48 percent of the responses. There is nonetheless a large number who prefer keeping the modifier “international.”
Preference for the name “international foot” in the future is explained to a large extent by Figure 4, which summarizes the occupations of the people providing feedback. A large majority are in the category of “land surveyor or engineer” (79 percent of 544 respondents), with the next largest group in the “GIS or mapping user” category (11 percent). Land surveyors, civil engineers, mappers, and geographic information system (GIS) professionals are typically familiar with the existence of these two definitions of the foot.
The high representation of engineers, GIS professionals, mappers, and especially surveyors also helps explain the large proportion of respondents who have experienced problems with the two definitions of the foot, as shown in Figure 1. This illustrates that NGS outreach webinar participants were highly representative of the stakeholder community.
The primary objective of seeking public comment was to get input on the process of implementing the change, not whether to make the change. To that end, valuable feedback was received regarding continued use of the name “international foot” after deprecation, rather than simply the “foot.” This input made a difference and was incorporated into the final determination. Considering all feedback received, a significant majority of commenters and webinar participants support deprecation of the U.S. survey foot and its replacement with the international foot definition. This is a noteworthy result because a majority of states currently use the U.S. survey foot for surveying and mapping. Receiving strong support for deprecating the U.S. survey foot reinforces the importance of undertaking this process.
Surveyors are by far the most affected by a change in the foot definition, so obtaining support and input from national surveying organizations was an important part of the deprecation process. The National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) and the Utility Engineering and Surveying Institute (UESI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) are nationwide organizations with a robust presence in the surveying profession.
Although these organizations did not provide input during the public comment period, they subsequently stated support for adopting the international foot definition for all applications throughout the United States (
“UESI believes that having a single definition for the foot will reduce confusion in surveying engineering projects, especially projects that make use of coordinates with large values (
The American Association for Geodetic Surveying (AAGS) is a national surveying organization with 150 members that provided input through the public comment process. AAGS took a neutral stance and did not endorse either definition of the foot but instead endorsed use of the meter.
Because many states have specified the U.S. survey foot for surveying applications in statute, it is noteworthy that two such states have already adopted the international foot in new legislation: Kentucky and Washington. For both states, the legislation went into effect this year (2020). The early and proactive action by these states has prepared them to switch to the international foot definition when the NSRS modernization goes into effect.
As discussed in the comments section of this notice, some of the public responses to the October 17, 2019, notice opposed deprecating the U.S. survey foot. Mitigating actions and supporting explanations are summarized below that address the concerns expressed in the opposing comments. More details are available on the NIST U.S. survey foot website (
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Some of the comments expressing opposition to the change included proposals for one of three alternatives to deprecating the U.S. survey foot, each of which is addressed below.
1.
2.
3.
Because the U.S. survey foot is specified for surveying activities in statute for most states, an important part of the implementation process is updating statutes. NSPS, AAGS, and NGS have collaborated to create template legislation to aid state adoption and transition to the international foot. State government stakeholders are encouraged to review and customize the language, as needed. These legislative resources are available online, including statutory text that has already been proposed or enacted by states (
In researching and developing the U.S. survey foot deprecation action plan, no government or professional organization reported initiating plans or establishing working groups specifically to address deprecation of the U.S. survey foot. However, many groups have organized groups to prepare for the NSRS modernization, especially at the state level. These groups typically consist of state departments of transportation, GIS or cartographer offices, professional surveying societies, universities, and other geospatial groups. There has also been considerable activity among national organizations and federal agencies (as illustrated by the example in the following paragraph). From the perspective of these various groups, adoption of the international foot is but one relatively small part of the many changes that will occur with NSRS modernization. Therefore, they are bundling multiple technical issues together as a single change management task.
The activities underway throughout the U.S. in planning for NSRS modernization are too numerous to report here. As an example, NGS solicited input for development of SPCS2022. Formal requests and proposals regarding SPCS2022 were received from about 200 different stakeholder groups in 41 states, and additional requests were received from several federal agencies (
Planning for the change early will minimize unnecessary cost and reduce complications and uncertainty. One factor reducing the uncertainty is the fact that this change has already occurred in six “early adopter” states (
Based on the state responses received so far, the change was efficiently managed in the same manner as recommended now, by combining the change in the foot definition with the change of the NSRS. Statute changes were also enacted by the “early adopter” states to specify the international foot. However, ongoing problems with the wrong definition of the foot being used were reported, usually by surveyors from other states still using the U.S. survey foot. The fact that such problems continued to occur reinforces the need to uniformly adopt this change. As more feedback is received, it will be added to the U.S. survey foot website (
A significant part of the input received concerned the name to use for the foot after deprecation. The October 17, 2019, notice stated that the international foot definition would be referred to as simply the “foot.” A large proportion of feedback preferred retaining the name “international feet” (see Figure 3 and the associated discussion). However, a somewhat larger proportion preferred either “foot” or both names. In addition, the NSPS Directors voted to use the term “foot,” and UESI also implied that the term “foot” was acceptable. Finally, a large majority of people in the U.S. only use the term “foot” for the international foot, in both casual and technical contexts, with most being unaware that the U.S. survey foot definition exists.
Nonetheless, it is completely understandable that many surveyors prefer to retain the name “international foot,” since they must deal with both definitions of the foot even after deprecation and implementation of the modernized NSRS. Although the use of the U.S. survey foot will diminish over time, it will be present for the foreseeable future because of legacy data and records, and with it the risk for confusion. For that reason, NIST and NOAA recommend continued use of the term “international foot” in situations where such ambiguity is possible.
States may choose the measurement unit for mapping (metric or “foot”) appropriate for their needs. Since the publication of the October 17, 2019, notice, two states (
NIST and NOAA will implement deprecation of the U.S. survey foot as described in the October 17, 2019, notice. The change will enter into force on December 31, 2022. This decision will allow adoption of a single, uniform definition of the foot for all applications throughout the United States. Uniformity in measurement will increase efficiency and reduce errors that occur when two nearly identical definitions of the foot are in current use. As shown by the public comments received, such problems are both common and costly. Moreover, a significant majority of input expressed approval of this change, and most of the input was received from the groups most affected (
In keeping with the terms of this notice, the U.S. survey foot will not be supported by NGS in the modernized NSRS, including for SPCS2022, elevations, or any other components of the system. Nevertheless, action will be taken by NGS to mitigate disruption caused by this change. Chief among those is that the U.S. survey foot will be maintained in NGS products and services in legacy applications, for example the computation of coordinates in States where it was specified for the State Plane Coordinate System of 1983, and for all zones of the State Plane Coordinate System of 1927.
Although the International System of Units (SI) is the preferred measurement system for trade and commerce in the United States, U.S. trade practice may continue to use non-SI measurement units, such as the U.S. customary system of measurement. Accordingly, NIST is adopting the proposed changes regarding deprecation of the U.S. survey foot and replacement with the international foot definition for all applications of the U.S. customary system of measurement in the U.S. The relationship between SI length measurement units and the U.S. survey foot and associated non-SI units will be incorporated in the upcoming edition of NIST Special Publication (SP) 811,
Past editions of NIST SP 811 and other NIST publications provided relationships for several traditional linear units that were based only on the U.S. survey foot. Table 1 provides the exact foot definitions for these units. Of the units listed, only the foot itself, the mile, and the square mile also had international foot definitions in previous editions of NIST SP 811 and other NIST publications. Future editions will include international foot definitions for all of these traditional linear units.
Table 1 gives conversions to meters for both foot definitions, which are exact for the international foot and approximate for the U.S. survey foot. Although U.S. survey foot conversions are included, their use should be avoided after December 31, 2022, other than for historic and legacy applications.
The foot-based units in Table 1 have traditionally been used for land measurement and surveying, except for the cable's length and fathom (used for water depth). Maintaining these exact foot relationships to the international foot definition is essential, because at least some of these units are still widely used in surveying practice (such as the acre and chain), and that usage will continue as long as the foot is used. In addition, these units have also been computed using the international foot since the late 1980s in those areas where the international foot was adopted. For these traditional measures, the difference between the two types of feet is usually of negligible consequence in most practical applications. For example, the greatest precision typically used for the chain in modern land surveying practice is three decimal places (or 0.1 link), and at that level of significance both definitions of the foot give the same value. Similarly, the difference in area for 1 acre is only 0.000 004 acre (about 0.17 ft
NIST and NOAA make the following recommendations to facilitate the orderly transition to a uniform adoption of the definition 1 foot = 0.3048 meter exactly for all applications in the United States:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Implementing these recommendations, together with other mitigating actions being taken by NIST and NOAA, will facilitate the smooth transition and nationwide adoption of the international foot with minimal disruption. Additional resources providing greater detail about the history of the foot, problems encountered by having two definitions of the foot, and the benefits of making this change are available on the NIST U.S. survey foot website (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will hear a presentation and consider approval of the final report of the Phase 2 work of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force and other topics including aquaculture and the Executive Order Promoting American Seafood competitiveness and Economic Growth, marine heatwaves, FY2021 budget, COVID-19 impacts on agency operations, and work of the Recreational Fisheries Subcommittee.
The meeting will be October 20 and 21, 2020 from 12:30-5 p.m., Eastern Time.
Meeting is by webinar and teleconference.
Heidi Lovett; NOAA Fisheries Office of Policy; (301) 427-8034; email:
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at
This meeting time and agenda are subject to change. The meeting is convened to hear presentations and consider approval of the final report of the Phase 2 work of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force. MAFAC members will also receive presentations and discuss work of the Recreational Fisheries Subcommittee on better identification of anglers in offshore waters; the FY2021 budget and impacts of COVID-19 on agency operations; Aquaculture Program updates and the Executive Order Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth; and marine heatwaves and science program activities. MAFAC will discuss various administrative and organizational matters, and meetings of subcommittees will convene.
The meeting is scheduled for October 20 and 21, 2020 from 12:30—5 p.m., Eastern Time by webinar and conference call. Access information for the public will be posted at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to issue permits to authorize the incidental, but not intentional, take of specific Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed marine mammal species or stocks under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), in certain U.S. commercial fisheries.
Comments on this action and supporting documents must be received by November 4, 2020.
You may submit comments on the proposed permits and the preliminary determinations supporting the permits, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0096, through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, and complete the required fields.
3. Enter or attach your comments.
The preliminary determinations supporting the permits are available on the internet at
Suzie Teerlink, NMFS Alaska Region, (907) 586-7240,
The MMPA requires NMFS to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammals in commercial fisheries provided it can make the following determinations: (1) The incidental mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks; (2) a recovery plan for all affected species or stocks of threatened or endangered marine mammals has been developed or is being developed; and (3) where required under MMPA section 118, a take reduction plan has been developed or is being developed, a monitoring program is implemented, and vessels participating in the fishery are registered. We have made a preliminary determination that certain commercial fisheries meet these three requirements and propose to issue permits to these fisheries to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species or stocks under the MMPA for a period of three years. We solicit public comments on the proposed issuance of these permits and the underlying preliminary determinations. We are also providing a preliminary list of commercial fisheries that, based on their level of M/SI of ESA-listed marine mammal species, do not require authorization under MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) so long as any incidental mortality or injury is reported.
The MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF) classifies each commercial fishery as a Category I, II, or III fishery based on the level of mortality and injury of marine mammals occurring incidental to each fishery as defined in 50 CFR 229.2. Category I and II fisheries must register with NMFS and are subsequently authorized to incidentally take marine mammals during commercial fishing operations. However, that authorization is limited to those marine mammals that are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1371, states that NMFS, as delegated by the Secretary of Commerce, for a period of up to three years shall allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammal stocks designated as depleted because of their listing as an endangered species or threatened species under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531
The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. We evaluated ESA-listed stocks or species documented on the 2020 MMPA LOF as killed or seriously injured following NMFS' Procedural Directive 02-238 “Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals.” Based on this evaluation, we propose to
Category III fisheries are those commercial fisheries that have a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals (MMPA section 118(c)(1)(A)(iii)). All commercial fisheries classified as Category III on the most current LOF do not require MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) authorization, so long as any mortality or injury of marine mammals incidental to their operations is reported pursuant to MMPA section 118(e). Furthermore, per NMFS' Procedural Directive 02-204-02 (procedural directive), “Criteria for Determining Negligible Impact under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E)” (NMFS 2020), NMFS considers such Category III fisheries to have a negligible impact on that marine mammal stock or species.
Thus, we incorporate by reference all Category III fisheries included in the 2020 MMPA LOF (85 FR 21079, April 16, 2020) as not subject to the ESA prohibition against incidentally taking marine mammals from endangered or threatened stocks, and not subject to any penalties, provided any mortalities or injures are reported as required under MMPA section 118(e).
In addition, for the purposes of MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E), commercial fisheries classified as Category I or II on the LOF solely because of incidental M/SI of non-ESA-listed marine mammals meet the definition of a Category III commercial fishery with respect to ESA-listed stocks or species because the fishery has a remote likelihood of or no known incidental M/SI of ESA-listed marine mammals. We have determined that the following two Category II commercial fisheries meet this criteria:
• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline; and
• HI shallow-set longline/Western Pacific pelagic longline (HI shallow-set component).
These fisheries do not require 101(a)(5)(E) authorization and are not subject to the ESA prohibition against incidentally taking marine mammals from endangered or threatened stocks, and not subject to any penalties, provided any marine mammal mortalities or injuries are reported as required under MMPA section 118(e).
In addition to the commercial fisheries referenced above, NMFS is evaluating other commercial fisheries for purposes of making a negligible impact determination (NID) and anticipates addressing such fisheries in future
Tribal fisheries conducted pursuant to a treaty with the United States are not included on the LOF, and are not subject to the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(E). In the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995), NMFS concluded that treaty tribal fisheries are conducted under the authority of the Indian treaties; the MMPA's requirements in section 118 do not apply to treaty Indian tribal fisheries. In the 2010 final LOF (74 FR 58859, November 16, 2009), NMFS re-evaluated its 1995 conclusion to exempt tribal fisheries from the LOF (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995) to determine whether it should be changed due to
For each commercial fishery listed in Table 1 above, we reviewed the best available scientific information to determine if the fishery met the three requirements of MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) for issuing a permit. This information is included in the 2020 MMPA LOF (85 FR 21079; April 16, 2020), the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, recovery plans for these species (available at:
NMFS is in the process of reviewing humpback whale stock structure under the MMPA in light of the 14 Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) established under the ESA (81 FR 62259, September 8, 2016), based on the recently finalized “Procedural Directive 02-204-03: Reviewing and Designating Stocks and Issuing Stock Assessment Reports under the Marine Mammal Protection Act” (NMFS 2019). The DPSs that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States do not align with the
Prior to issuing a permit to take ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing, NMFS must determine if the M/SI incidental to commercial fisheries will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. NMFS satisfies this requirement by making a NID. Although the MMPA does not define “negligible impact,” NMFS has issued regulations providing a qualitative definition of “negligible impact,” defined in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Through scientific analysis, peer review, and public notice, NMFS developed a quantitative approach for determining negligible impact. We finalized the NMFS Procedural Directive 02-204-02 (directive), “Criteria for Determining Negligible Impact under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E),” effective on June 17, 2020 (NMFS 2020). The procedural directive is available online at:
The procedural directive first describes the derivation of two Negligible Impact Thresholds (NIT), which represent levels of removal from a marine mammal species or stock. The first, Total Negligible Impact Threshold (NIT
The directive describes a detailed process for using these NIT values to conduct a NID analysis for each fishery classified as a Category I or II fishery on the MMPA LOF. The NID process uses a two-tiered analysis. The Tier 1 analysis first compares the total human-caused M/SI for a particular stock to NIT
These criteria rely on the best available scientific information, including estimates of a stock's minimum population size and human-caused M/SI levels, as published in the most recent SARs and other supporting documents, as appropriate. Using these inputs, the quantitative negligible impact thresholds allow for straightforward calculations that lead to clear negligible or non-negligible impact determinations for each commercial fishery analyzed. In rare cases, robust data may be unavailable for a straightforward calculation, and the directive provides instructions for completing alternative calculations or assessments where appropriate.
We evaluated the impact of each commercial fishery (listed in Table 1 above) following the procedural directive, and, based on the best available scientific information, made NIDs. These NID analyses are presented in accompanying MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) determination documents that provide summaries of the information used to evaluate each ESA-listed stock documented on the 2020 MMPA LOF as killed or injured incidental to the fishery. The draft MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) determination documents are available at:
Recovery Plans for the ESA-listed species or stocks listed in Table 1 have either been completed (see
Subject to available funding, MMPA section 118 requires the development and implementation of a Take Reduction Plan (TRP) for each strategic stock that interacts with a Category I or II fishery. The stocks considered for these permits are designated as strategic stocks under the MMPA because they, or a component of the stocks, are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (MMPA section 3(19)(C)).
The short- and long-term goals of a TRP are to reduce M/SI of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing to levels below the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level for stocks and to an insignificant threshold, defined by NMFS as 10 percent of PBR, respectively. The obligations to develop and implement a TRP are subject to the availability of funding. MMPA section 118(f)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1387(f)(3)) contains specific priorities for developing TRPs
All of the evaluated fisheries listed in Table 1, for the affected marine mammal species or stocks, either have a TRP in place or based on NMFS' priorities, implementation of a TRP is currently deferred under section 118 as other stocks/fisheries are a higher priority for any available funding for establishing new TRPs. Accordingly, the requirement under MMPA section 118 to have TRPs in place or in development is satisfied (see preliminary determinations supporting the permits available on the internet at
Under MMPA section 118(d), NMFS is to establish a program for monitoring incidental M/SI of marine mammals from commercial fishing operations. Each of the fisheries listed in Table 1 considered for authorization under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) is monitored by NMFS fishery observer programs. Accordingly, the requirement under MMPA section 118 to have a monitoring program in place is satisfied.
MMPA section 118(c) requires that vessels participating in Category I and II fisheries register to obtain an authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fishing activities. NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP), with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Therefore, the requirement for vessel registration is satisfied.
Based on the above evaluation for each commercial fishery listed in Table 1 as it relates to the three requirements of MMPA 101(a)(5)(E), we propose to issue MMPA 101(a)(5)(E) permits to the commercial fisheries in Table 1 to authorize the incidental take of ESA-listed species or stocks during commercial fishing operations. If, during the 3-year authorization, there is a significant change in the information or conditions used to support any of these determinations, NMFS will re-evaluate whether to amend or modify that specific authorization, after notice and opportunity for public comment. If the authorization for an individual fishery in Table 1 becomes amended, modified, or invalidated for any reason during the 3-year period, the authorizations for the other commercial fisheries in Table 1 will continue unchanged and effective until the end of the 3-year period. As noted above, under MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E)(ii), no permit is required for vessels in Category III fisheries, or for the Category II commercial fisheries listed above that meet the definition of a Category III commercial fishery with respect to ESA-listed species or stocks, so long as any incidental marine mammal mortality or injury is reported to NMFS pursuant to MMPA section 118(e). NMFS solicits public comments on the proposed permits and the preliminary determinations supporting the permits.
ESA section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the existence of any species listed under the ESA, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat of any ESA-listed species. The effects of these commercial fisheries on ESA-listed marine mammals for which permits are proposed here, were analyzed in the appropriate Fishery Management Plan ESA section 7 Biological Opinions, and incidental take was exempted for those ESA-listed marine mammals for each of these fisheries.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impacts of alternatives for their actions on the human environment. Because these proposed permits would not modify any fishery operation and the effects of the fishery operations have been evaluated in accordance with NEPA, no additional NEPA analysis beyond that conducted for the associated Fishery Management Plans is required for these permits. Issuing the proposed permits would have no additional impact on the human environment or effects on threatened or endangered species beyond those analyzed in these documents.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of withdrawal.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council initiated development of Amendment 7 to the
Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9180.
In December 2017, the Council initiated a comprehensive amendment to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to review and update the goals and objectives of this FMP, as well as reevaluate quota allocation and transfer provisions between sectors and states, in light of changing fishery conditions and stakeholder priorities. The Council published a notice of intent to develop an environmental impact statement for this amendment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures (83 FR 26267; June 6, 2018), and held a series of scoping hearings with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Bluefish Board in June and July of 2018. Following this round of scoping, development on the amendment was put on hold until the results of the August 2019 operational stock assessment were available that incorporated revised Marine Recreational Information Program data into its model.
The 2019 assessment determined that the bluefish stock is now overfished although overfishing is not occurring, and at its December 2019 meeting, the Council decided to add the rebuilding plan to Amendment 7. The Council must develop and implement a rebuilding plan within 2 years of notification that a stock is overfished, by the end of November 2021. Following a second round of scoping hearings in February and March 2020, the Council and NMFS have determined that the range of proposed alternatives included in this amendment are not expected to have significant impacts on the fishery or affected environment and that an environmental assessment will be developed. Therefore, this notice announces the Council's withdrawal of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 7 to the Bluefish FMP. Development of the amendment will continue with an environmental assessment instead.
16 U.S.C. 1801
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,259,184 (`184 patent).
Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7728 or by email to
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On July 14, 2020, Correvio International Sàrl, the owner of record of the `184 patent, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of the `184 patent. The `184 patent claims a method of using the product vernakalant hydrochloride. The application for interim patent term extension indicates that New Drug Application No. 22-034 for vernakalant hydrochloride was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 19, 2006, and that the FDA's review thereof is ongoing.
Review of the interim patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the `184 patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156. Because it appears the approval phase of the regulatory review period will continue beyond the original expiration date of the patent,
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,259,184 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the `184 patent.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 6,406,699 ('699 patent).
Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7728 or by email to
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On August 17, 2020, TVAX Biomedical I, LLC, the owner of record of the '699 patent, timely filed an application under
Review of the interim patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the '699 patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156. Because it appears the approval phase of the regulatory review period will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the '699 patent,
A second interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 6,406,699 is granted for a period of one year from the extended expiration date of the '699 patent.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,524,879 (`879 patent).
Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7728 or by email to
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On July 14, 2020, Correvio International Sàrl, the owner of record of the `879 patent, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of the `879 patent. The `879 patent claims a method of using the product vernakalant hydrochloride. The application for interim patent term extension indicates that New Drug Application No. 22-034 for vernakalant hydrochloride was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 19, 2006, and that the FDA's review thereof is ongoing.
Review of the interim patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the `879 patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156. Because it appears the approval phase of the regulatory review period will continue beyond the original expiration date of the patent,
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,5242,879 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the `879 patent.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued an order granting a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,057,053 (`053 patent).
Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at 571-272-7728 or by email to
35 U.S.C. 156 generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years, if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review. 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) generally provides that the term of such a patent may be extended for no more than five interim periods of up to one year each, if the approval phase of the regulatory review period is reasonably expected to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On July 14, 2020, Correvio International Sàrl, the owner of record of the `053 patent, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of the `053 patent. The `053 patent claims the product vernakalant hydrochloride. The application for interim patent term extension indicates that New Drug Application No. 22-034 for vernakalant hydrochloride was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 19, 2006, and that the FDA's review thereof is ongoing.
Review of the interim patent term extension application indicates that, except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the `053 patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156. Because it appears the approval phase of the regulatory review period will continue beyond the original expiration date of the patent,
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 7,057,053 is granted for a period of one year from the original expiration date of the `053 patent.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting a new information collection titled, “Start Small, Save Up Workforce Questionnaire.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before November 4, 2020 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
The questionnaire asks about the respondent's recent experiences with unexpected financial shocks, the respondent's savings cushion available for emergencies, the respondent's savings behavior and savings vehicles. It includes the five-question version of the Bureau's Financial Well-Being Scale.
The Bureau can use the information collected to connect savings and financial well-being, and to inform future development of employer-sponsored financial education materials and programs.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success (CEVSS) Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.116G. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Kelly Harris, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 268-30, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7346. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Projects that include the following required activities:
(a) Establishing a Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on the campus of the institution to provide a single point of contact to coordinate comprehensive support services for veteran students;
(b) Establishing a veteran student support team, including representatives from the offices of the institution responsible for admissions, registration, financial aid, veterans benefits, academic advising, student health, personal or mental health counseling, career advising, disabilities services, and any other office of the institution that provides support to veteran students on campus;
(c) Providing a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program;
(d) Monitoring the rates of veteran student enrollment, persistence, and completion; and
(e) Developing a plan to sustain the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success after the grant period.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the applicant has never received a grant, including through membership in a group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, under the CEVSS program.
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the following:
(a) The area in which the applicant proposes to provide services overlaps with a Qualified Opportunity Zone, as designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1400Z-1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). An applicant must—
(i) Provide the census tract number of the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s) in which it proposes to provide services; and
(ii) Describe how the applicant will provide services in the Qualified Opportunity Zone(s).
Applicants addressing this priority could consider indicating how they plan to conduct outreach and recruitment of veterans that reside in Qualified Opportunity Zones which, compared to areas that are not Qualified Opportunity Zones, have higher average poverty rates, lower median household incomes, higher unemployment rates, and lower levels of educational attainment.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5” x 11”, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract and the bibliography. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs Form (ED 524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response to the Budget section of the selection criteria.
1.
(a)
(1) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.
(3) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(b)
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.
(2) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.
(c)
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
(d)
(1) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
As stated in the absolute priority for this competition, a proposed Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success must have a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program. In response to this selection criterion, the application must describe the qualifications of this individual, the members of the veteran student support team described in the absolute priority, and any other individuals who will help carry out the proposed project. The grant project director may or may not be the coordinator of the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success. Applicants should consider emphasizing how the training and experience of veteran employees staffing the project, if applicable, will support the goals of the project.
(e)
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
(3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
A budget summary and budget narrative attached to your proposal should itemize the support you are requesting through the CEVSS Program.
(f)
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of the project implementation strategies.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). The projects must also be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution.
A panel of two non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the
If the Secretary has insufficient funding to award multiple applications with the same score, consistent with section 873(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA, in making a selection, the Secretary will consider (a) the number of veteran students enrolled at each IHE; and (b) the need for model programs to address the needs of veteran students at a wide range of IHEs, including the need to provide (i) an equitable distribution of such grants to IHEs of various types and sizes; (ii) an equitable geographic distribution of such grants; and (iii) an equitable distribution of such grants among rural and urban areas.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Finance and Operations (OFO), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6115.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jennifer Simpson, (202) 245-6052.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Finance and Operations (OFO), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Alfreida Pettiford, 202-245-6110.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 4, 2020.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elise Cook, 202-401-3769.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general
Office of Electricity, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
CHPE, LLC (the Applicant) has filed an application to amend Presidential Permit No. PP-481. CHPE, LLC is requesting the amendment to allow for certain modifications to the previously permitted route.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments or motions to intervene should be addressed to Christopher Lawrence,
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260 or by email to
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038.
On September 25, 2020, CHPE, LLC filed an application with the Office of Electricity of the Department of Energy (DOE), as required by regulations at 10 CFR 205.320
On October 6, 2014, DOE issued Presidential Permit No. PP-362, authorizing Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. (CHPEI) to construct, operate, maintain, and connect the Champlain Hudson Power Express Project (Project). As described in PP-362, the Project is a 1,000-megawatt (MW), high-voltage direct current (HVDC), underground and underwater merchant transmission system that will cross the United States-Canada international border underwater near the Town of Champlain, New York, extend approximately 336 miles south through New York State, and interconnect to facilities located in Queens County, New York, owned by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York. The aquatic segments of the transmission line will primarily be buried in sediments of Lake Champlain and the Hudson, Harlem, and East rivers. The terrestrial portions of the transmission line will primarily be buried within existing road and railroad rights-of-way (ROW). On July 21, 2020, DOE issued Presidential Permit PP-481 transferring the facilities authorized in PP-362 to CHPE, LLC at the request of CHPEI and CHPE, LLC.
Since the issuance of PP-362 in 2014, the Applicant, in consultation with various stakeholders, has developed certain modifications to the permitted Project route, including relocating the site of the Project converter station.
According to the Applicant, “[t]hese proposed changes are principally driven by engineering, environmental, and landowner/stakeholder considerations that have been identified as the Applicant has refined the design of the Project.” App. at 3. “Among other things,” the Applicant asserts that “the proposed changes would avoid shallow water related engineering challenges, reduce rock removal and wetland impacts, eliminate disruption to downtown activities within the City of Schenectady, forego reliance on an aging railroad bridge, accommodate community concerns, [and] avoid recently constructed infrastructure,” as well as “optimiz[e] the design of the converter station and the connection to existing electrical facilities.”
Comments and other filings concerning this application should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. PP-481-1. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Mr. Donald Jessome, Chief Executive Officer, Transmission Developers Inc., Pieter Schuyler Building, 600 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207-2283,
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action is in the public interest. In making that determination, DOE will consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (
This application may be reviewed or downloaded electronically at
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee (NQIAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, October 27, 2020; 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. PDT.
Virtual Meeting: Instructions to participate remotely will be posted on the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee website at: (
Altaf Carim, Designated Federal Officer, NQIAC, (301) 903-9564 or email:
Please note that because NQIAC operates under the provisions of FACA, all public comments and related materials will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including being posted on the NQIAC website.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 28, 2020, pursuant to sections 306, and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825e, and 825h, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Targa Badlands LLC, Targa Assets LLC and, Targa Fort Berthold LLC (Respondents), challenging the lawfulness of the rates charged by Targa Badlands LLC, Targa Assets LLC and Targa Fort Berthold LLC, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondents in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is requesting comment on applications from North American Subaru, Inc., (Subaru) for off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2020-0427, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
David Wright, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4467. Fax: (734) 214-4869. Email address:
EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO
Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-cycle credits with an alternative methodology (
• Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or other approved analytical or engineering methods;
• Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
• Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
• Result in data on a model type basis unless the manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and adequate.
Further, the regulations specify the following requirements regarding an application for off-cycle CO
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-cycle technology, and carry out any necessary testing and analysis required to support that methodology.
• A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO
• The application must contain a list of the vehicle model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
• The application must contain a detailed description of the test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the selection of those vehicles for testing.
• The application must contain all testing and/or simulation data required under the regulations, plus any other data the manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.
Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, Subaru is applying for credits for model years 2017 and later. Subaru has applied for
EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now making the applications available for public review and comment as required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications submitted by Subaru (with confidential business information redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other
The data on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission to use an FRN. Records may include information about individuals or households,
On April 23, 2020, the Commission Adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket 18-295, FCC 20-51, that requires temporary fixed microwave licensees to register temporary fixed links in the ULS database in order to receive protection from unlicensed devices operating in the 6GHz band, a summary of which was published at 85 FR 31390 (May 26, 2020). Automated frequency coordination (AFC) administrators will use this information to determine where unlicensed devices can operate. Temporary fixed licensees were not previously required to file applications with the Commission when they commenced operation, so this is a new filing requirement. We estimate that 70 respondents, will file 1,050 responses per year (15 per licensee), with an estimated time burden of 525 hours (30 minutes per filing). In addition to creating this new filing requirement, two new data fields will be required to describe when the temporary fixed links will be operational, so that the AFCs will know when to protect the temporary fixed links. For this purpose a “start date” and “end date” will be added to the Form 601, Schedule I.
On May 13, 2020, the FCC adopted a Report and Order, FCC 20-67, in WT Docket No. 17-200, modified by an erratum released July 1, 2020, that establishes rules for broadband license operations in the 897.5-900.5/936.5-939.5 MHz segment of the 900 MHz band (896-901/935-940 MHz), a summary of which was published at 85 FR 43124 (July 16, 2020). The Commission seeks approval from OMB for the information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order, FCC 20-67. The requirements in §§ 27.1503(b)(1), (2), and (3) and (c)(1) and 27.1505(a) and (b) constitute revised information collections pursuant to the PRA. For the first three years of this collection, we estimate that 30 respondents will file 60 responses per year (two per licensee), with an estimate time burden of 30 hours (30 minutes per filing). We estimate that 30 respondents will file 60 responses (once at the six-year mark, and once at the 12-year mark of the 900 MHz broadband license term), with an estimate time burden of 30 hours in each of those two years (1 hour per filing).
Section 27.1503(b)(1) requires an applicant to file an application for a 900 MHz broadband license in accordance with part 1, subpart F, of the Commission's rules. The 900 MHz broadband service is a new service governed under part 27 of the Commission's rules. The Commission requests OMB approval to revise FCC Form 601 to add a new radio service code, a new Schedule N for the 900 MHz broadband service, and two new attachment types for the Eligibility Certification and Transition Plan.
Schedule N would be a new supplementary schedule for 900 MHz broadband service applicants to apply for the required license authorization in conjunction with the FCC 601 Main Form. In Schedule N, 900 MHz broadband service applicants would identify the market(s) to which the filing pertains and certifications that the applicant has attached an Eligibility Certification and Transition Plan, that the applicant will return licensed 900 MHz spectrum to the Commission, and that it will remit an anti-windfall payment if applicable.
Section 27.1503(b)(2) requires an applicant to file an Eligibility Certification as part of its application for a 900 MHz broadband license. In its Eligibility Certification, an applicant must list the licenses the applicant holds in the 900 MHz band to demonstrate that it holds licenses for
Section 27.1503(b)(3) requires an applicant to file a Transition Plan as part of its application for a 900 MHz broadband license. In its Transition Plan, an applicant must demonstrate one or more of the following for at least 90% of the site-channels in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary, and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county: (1) Agreement by covered incumbents to relocate form the broadband segment; (2) protection of site-based covered incumbents through compliance with minimum spacing criteria; (3) protection of site-based covered incumbents through new or existing letters of concurrence agreeing to lesser base station separations; (4) protection of geographically-based covered incumbents through private contractual agreements; and/or (5) evidence that it holds licenses for the site channels in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county. The Transition Plan must describe in detail: (1) Descriptions of the agreements reached with covered incumbents to relocate and the applications that the parties to the agreements will file for spectrum in the narrowband segment in order to relocate or repack licensees; (2) descriptions of how the applicant will provide interference protection to, and/or acquire or relocate from the broadband segment, covered incumbents collectively holding licenses for at least 90% of the site-channels in the county and within 70 miles of the county boundary, and geographically licensed channels where the license area completely or partially overlaps the county, and/or evidence that it holds licenses for the site-channels and/or geographically licensed channels; (3) any rule waivers or other actions necessary to implement an agreement with a covered incumbent; and (4) such additional information as may be required. The Commission requires the applicant to include in the Transition Plan a certification from a frequency coordinator that the Transition Plan can be implemented consistent with the Commission's rules. The Commission allows an applicant seeking to transition multiple counties simultaneously to file a single Transition Plan that covers all of its county-based applications.
Section 27.1503(c)(1) requires an applicant to cancel its 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio and Business/Industrial/Land Transportation licenses, up to six megahertz, conditioned upon Commission grant of its license. An applicant would file FCC Form 601 to cancel existing licenses, but this information collection does not involve a revision of FCC Form 601.
Section 27.1505 requires a 900 MHz broadband licensee to meet performance requirements. Section 27.1505(a) requires an applicant to file a construction notification in accordance with § 1.946(d) of the Commission's rules. An applicant would file FCC Form 601 to file the construction notification, and this information collection would encompass adding a new radio service code for the 900 MHz broadband service. Pursuant to § 27.1505(b), licensees can satisfy performance requirement through population or geographic coverage. Under the population metric, a 900 MHz broadband licensee would be required to provide reliable signal coverage and offer broadband service to at least 45% of the population in its license area within six years of license grant and to at least 80% of the population in its license area within twelve years of license grant. Under the geographic coverage metric, a 900 MHz broadband licensee would be required to provide reliable signal coverage and offer broadband service to at least 25% of the geographic license area within six years of license grant and to at least 50% of the geographic license area within twelve years of license grant. To meet the broadband service obligation, the Commission expects licensees to deploy technologies that make intensive use of the entire
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of Establishment of Two Matching Programs.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), this document announces the establishment of computer matching programs the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission” or “Agency”) and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will conduct with the State of Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF), Office of Economic Self-Sufficiency (Florida), and the State of Minnesota's Department of Human Services (DHS) (Minnesota). (“Agencies”). The purpose of these two matching programs is to verify the eligibility of applicants to and subscribers of the Universal Service Fund (USF) Lifeline program, which is administered by USAC under the direction of the FCC. More information about these programs is provided in the
Written comments are due on or before November 4, 2020. This computer matching program will commence on November 4, 2020, and will conclude on May 5, 2022.
Send comments to Mr. Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), FCC, Washington, DC 20554, or to
Mr. Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or
The Lifeline program provides support for discounted broadband and voice services to low-income consumers. Lifeline is administered by the Universal Service Administrative
• Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), Office of Economic Self-Sufficiency; and
• Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS).
47 U.S.C. 254; 47 CFR 54.400
In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the FCC required USAC to develop and operate the National Verifier to improve efficiency and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. The stated purpose of the National Verifier is “to increase the integrity and improve the performance of the Lifeline program for the benefit of a variety of Lifeline participants, including Lifeline providers, subscribers, states, community-based organizations, USAC, and the Commission.” 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4006, para. 126. To help determine whether Lifeline applicants and subscribers are eligible for Lifeline benefits, the Order contemplates that the USAC-operated LED will communicate with information systems and databases operated by other Federal and State agencies. Id. at 4011-2, paras. 135-7.
The categories of individuals whose information is involved in the two matching programs include, but are not limited to, those individuals (residing in a single household) who have applied for Lifeline benefits; are currently receiving Lifeline benefits; are individuals who enable another individual in their household to qualify for Lifeline benefits; are minors whose status qualifies a parent or guardian for Lifeline benefits; are individuals who have received Lifeline benefits; or are individuals acting on behalf of an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) who have enrolled individuals in the Lifeline program.
The categories of records involved in the two matching programs include, but are not limited to, the last four digits of the Lifeline applicant's Social Security Number, date of birth, and first name and last name. The National Verifier will transfer these data elements to the Florida DCF and the Minnesota DHS, which will respond either “yes” or “no” that the individual is enrolled in a Lifeline-qualifying assistance program: State of Florida's SNAP and Medicaid and State of Minnesota's SNAP and Medicaid.
The USAC records shared as part of this matching program reside in the Lifeline system of records, FCC/WCB-1, Lifeline Program, a notice of which the FCC published at 82 FR 38,686 (Aug. 15, 2017) and which became effective on September 14, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 4, 2020. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
The Commission concluded in the
The information that will be collected under this new information collection is designed to ensure that 3.7 GHz Service licensees operate in a manner that ensures incumbent C-band operations in the upper portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band and TT&C operations in the 3700-3980 MHz band are protected. By requiring 3.7 GHz Service licensees to provide a copy of any private agreement with 3.7 GHz earth station operators to prospective license assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, and to the Commission, the Commission ensures that such agreements continue to protect incumbent C-band operations in the event a 3.7 GHz service license is subsequently transferred to a new licensee. This collection promotes the safety of operations in the band and reduces the risk of harmful interference to incumbents. It also ensures that relevant stakeholders have access to coordination agreements between 3.7 GHz Service licensees and entities operating earth stations or TT&C operations.
The information provided by the 3.7 GHz Service licensee to the TT&C operator ensures the protection of TT&C operations. The information collection will facilitate an efficient and safe transition by requiring 3.7 GHz Service licensees to demonstrate their ability to comply with the -6 dB I/N criteria, thereby minimizing the risk of interference.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 20, 2020.
1.
In addition, Scott A. Erickson, individually, to join the Erickson family shareholder group and to retain voting shares of Leackco Bank Holding Company, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of American Bank & Trust.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the FTC Performance Review Board.
Vicki Barber, Chief Human Capital Officer, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2700.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314 (c) (4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairman.
The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission's Performance Review Board:
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding information specific to a contract or contracting action that is not required by regulation.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0163, Information Specific to a Contract or Contracting Action (Not Required by Regulation), via
Mr. Clarence Harrison, Procurement Analyst, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, at telephone 202-227-7051 or email
GSA has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of supplies, transportation, information technology, telecommunications, real property management, and disposal of real and personal property. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of public contracts.
Most GSA procurement-related information collections are required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); each clause requiring such a collection must be individually approved by OMB. However, some solicitations require contractors to submit information specific to that contracting action, such as information needed to evaluate offers (
This information collection is currently associated with GSA's information collection requirements contained in solicitations issued in accordance with the Uniform Contract Format under FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding (see GSAR 514.201-1); FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation (see GSAR 552.215-73); and solicitations under FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items (see GSAR 512.301). This includes information collection requirements found in GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) solicitations.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical utility; whether our
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces a third modification and extension of the No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations that was issued on July 16, 2020. This Order applies to cruise ships defined as commercial, non-cargo, passenger-carrying vessels with the capacity to carry 250 or more individuals (passengers and crew) and with an itinerary anticipating an overnight stay onboard or a 24-hour stay onboard for either passengers or crew, that are operating in international, interstate, or intrastate waterways, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This Order shall additionally apply to cruise ships operating outside of U.S. waters if the cruise ship operator intends for the ship to return to operating in international, interstate, or intrastate waterways, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States during the period that this Order is in effect.
This action was effective September 30, 2020.
Jennifer Buigut, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS V18-2, Atlanta, GA 30329. Phone: 404-498-1600. Email:
This Order renews the No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations signed by the CDC Director on March 14, 2020, as further modified and extended effective April 15, 2020, and July 16, 2020 subject to the modifications and additional stipulated conditions as set forth in this Order.
This Order shall remain in effect until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) October 31, 2020.
A copy of the order is provided below and a copy of the signed order can be found at
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread rapidly around the world with no approved treatment or vaccine. By July 16, 2020, the date of the second modification and extension of the No Sail Order, there were over 13 million confirmed cases and over 580,000 confirmed deaths worldwide. As of September 28, 2020, a cumulative total of over 33 million cases and almost 1 million confirmed deaths have now been reported worldwide. Even in countries that have managed to slow the rate of transmission, the risks for COVID-19 resurgence remains. In the United States, as of September 28, 2020, there have been over 7 million cases and more than 200,000 confirmed deaths with over 300,000 new cases reported in the last 7 days.
Since HHS/CDC's original No Sail Order, signed on March 14, 2020, which suspended the embarkation of passengers, CDC has worked to control the spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 on cruise ships that remained in U.S. jurisdiction, while protecting against further introduction and spread of the virus associated with COVID-19 into U.S. communities. Cruise ships continue to be an unsafe environment with close quarters where the disease spreads easily and is not readily detected.
Cumulative CDC data from March 1 through September 28, 2020, show a total of 3,689 confirmed cases of COVID-19
The challenges described in this document highlight the need for further action prior to cruise ships safely resuming passenger operations in the United States. CDC supports the decision by the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) and its members to voluntarily extend the suspension of operations for passenger cruise ship travel through October 31, 2020.
However, because not all cruise ship operators subject to the No Sail Order are members of CLIA or have made similar commitments, CDC is extending its No Sail Order to continue to protect the public's health by ensuring that passenger operations do not resume prematurely.
This Order renews the No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations signed by the CDC Director on March 14, 2020,
This Order shall remain in effect until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the Order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) October 31, 2020.
The findings and other evidence relied upon in issuing the March 14 Order, and April 15 and July 16, 2020, modifications and extensions, are incorporated herein by reference. Any ambiguity or conflict between the March 14 Order, and April 15 and July 16 modifications and extensions, as further modified and extended by the current Order, shall be resolved in favor of the current Order.
This Order shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner as to achieve the following paramount objectives:
• Preserving human life;
• Preserving the health and safety of cruise ship crew members, port personnel, and communities;
• Preventing the further introduction, transmission, and spread of COVID-19 into and throughout the United States;
• Preserving the public health and other critical resources of Federal, State, and local governments;
• Preserving hospital, healthcare, and emergency response resources within the United States; and
• Maintaining the safety of shipping and harbor conditions.
The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Order:
“COVID-19” means coronavirus disease 2019, the disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
“Itinerary” means a plan to engage in operations.
“Layup” means reducing cruise ship operations to those levels needed to maintain essential machinery and equipment so that the ship may be returned to service at some future date.
“Operations,” “Operate,” and “Operating” in U.S. waters mean any action by a cruise ship operator (
“Operator” means the Master of the vessel (cruise ship) and any other crew member responsible for cruise ship operations and navigation, as well as any person or entity (including a corporate entity) that authorizes or directs the use of a cruise ship (
This Modification and Extension of No Sail Order and Other Measures Related to Operations shall apply only to the subset of carriers
All commercial, non-cargo,
This Order shall apply to cruise ships operating outside of U.S. waters if the cruise ship operator intends for the ship to return to operating in international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States during the period that this Order is in effect. The Order shall additionally apply regardless of whether the cruise ship operator has voluntarily agreed to suspend operations.
Under the No Sail Order, as modified and extended on April 15 and July 16, 2020, cruise ship operations were limited, and cruise ship operators required to submit plans to prevent, mitigate, and respond to the spread of COVID-19 as a condition of obtaining or retaining controlled free pratique to engage in cruise ship operations in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Cruise ship operators were also required to submit No Sail Order (NSO) response plans that ensured a safe environment for crew to work and disembark, and that minimized the impact on U.S. government operations or the operations of any state or local government, or the U.S. healthcare system.
As of April 29, 2020, seven
CDC published its
COVID-19 often presents as mild illness and many cases are asymptomatic among people of all ages. When symptoms are present, they are nonspecific and similar to those of many other respiratory infections and noninfectious conditions such as seasonal allergies. CDC
However, availability of such routine viral testing on cruise ships remains limited. For these reasons, CDC does not limit its data collection to just confirmed cases of COVID-19 but collects data on both confirmed cases and COVID-like illness. These data create a more accurate picture of the spread of COVID-19 and its effects in the United States and provide additional data to inform the national public health response. As of September 28, EDC reports have shown a total of 6,088 PCR tests performed, 294 (5%) of which were positive for COVID-19; 24 hospitalizations; two instances of mechanical ventilation; and 15 medical evacuations for crew on ships within U.S. jurisdiction since April 13, 2020.
CDC established a “COVID-19 Color Coding System” for ships applicable to cruise ship operators with an appropriate NSO response plan for crew management. Classification of ships under this system requires cruise company officials to sign an acknowledgment of the completeness and accuracy of their NSO response plans upon completion of CDC review of the plan. CDC additionally provides a provisional color status for ships belonging to cruise ship operators that do not yet have a complete and accurate plan. CDC assesses the status of a ship by reviewing surveillance data from the weekly EDC form as well as recent embarkations or crew transfers. Additional details regarding the color-coding system and color coding status for individual ships (which is updated weekly) may be found at
Since July 16, 2020, CDC has conducted implementation checks on 11 cruise ships operating in U.S. jurisdiction to review compliance with the NSO. These implementation checks showed that cruise ship operators were adhering to the requirements of the NSO and their NSO response plans.
While cruise ship operators have adhered to their NSO response plans during this time of suspended passenger operations, challenges remain. These challenges include the limitations of viral test results, including the possibility of false negative test results, the importance of crew quarantine in preventing disease spread, and concerns relating to reporting of symptoms by crew.
Two specific cases help illustrate these challenges. In the first case, following a cruise ship operator's policy to test all newly embarking crew prior joining a ship, a crew member was tested in his home country and found to be PCR-negative for COVID-19 prior to flying to the United States to board the ship. Pursuant to CDC recommendations, the crew member immediately began a 14-day quarantine in a private cabin, and other crew members sanitized his boarding pathway after embarkation. Approximately 9 hours later during a routine temperature check, the crew member was found dead in bed.
In the second case, another crew member onboard the same ship was tested in his home country and was also PCR-negative for COVID-19 prior to flying to the United States to board the ship. Again, pursuant to CDC recommendations, the crew member immediately began a 14-day quarantine in a private cabin, and other crew members sanitized his boarding pathway after embarkation. During this quarantine period, the crew member developed symptoms of nasal congestion and upon examination was found to have a rapid heart rate without a fever. When the cruise ship performed PCR testing of all 174 crew, this crew member was the only one who tested positive for COVID-19, indicating that the crew member became infected in the crew member's home country before travel.
These cases illustrate the importance of the 14-day quarantine period for embarking crew and how test results cannot eliminate the need for or reduce the length of quarantine. Testing represents a snapshot in time. A negative test result means that the virus that causes COVID-19 was not found in the sample collected. However, it is possible for any test to give a negative result that is incorrect (“false negative”) in some people with COVID-19; testing may also be negative while a person is in the 2-14-day incubation period for COVID-19. The accuracy of any diagnostic test depends on many factors, including whether the sample was collected properly, whether the sample was maintained in appropriate conditions while it was shipped to the laboratory, and when during the course of the infection the testing was conducted.
When viral testing is negative, the possibility of a false negative result should be considered in the context of the individual's recent exposures and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19. The possibility of a false negative result should be considered especially if recent exposures or clinical presentation indicate that COVID-19 is likely, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (
As these cases illustrate, a single negative test result cannot be used to rule out the possibility of COVID-19, especially if the individual may have been recently exposed to the virus or is displaying symptoms. Relying on crew testing alone without quarantine would not have been enough to prevent these two infected crew members from exposing others onboard. Despite preboarding screening efforts, one of these crew members was also reluctant to report symptoms. These factors should be considered carefully by cruise ship operators in planning for an eventual return to passenger operations.
There have been several recent instances of outbreaks of COVID-19 onboard cruise ships in those countries that have allowed passenger operations to resume, despite cruise ship operators implementing measures to control the disease. On the Hurtigruten cruise ship
Cases of COVID-19 have also been documented on other cruise ships that have attempted to resume passenger operations. The SeaDream Yacht Club temporarily halted cruising onboard the
In the above examples, cruise ship operators had health and safety protocols to prevent the transmission and spread of COVID-19. The protocols adopted by the Hurtigruten included new sanitation measures, elimination of self-serve buffet dining, implementation of onboard social distancing procedures, operating at 50% capacity, a preboarding health questionnaire, and restricted shore excursions.
In these examples, even when health and safety protocols were apparently observed, resuming passenger operations significantly burdened public health authorities by creating the need for additional testing, contact tracing, and quarantine. While the SeaDream Yacht Club has claimed that the passenger on board the
Cruise ship operators have taken steps to advance their public health response to COVID-19, improve safety, and achieve readiness to safely resume passenger operations. Under the co-chairmanship of former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, two cruise lines, Royal Caribbean Group and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, assembled a “Healthy Sail Panel” of subject-matter experts from a variety of disciplines.
To gather more information regarding these industry-led efforts and solicit public input, on July 20, 2020, CDC published a Request for Information (RFI) in the
The continued spread of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide, risk of resurgence in countries that have suppressed transmission, ongoing concerns related to the restart of cruising internationally, and need for additional time to assess industry measures to control potential COVID-19 onboard cruise ships with passengers without burdening public health, support continuing to defer resumption of passenger operations at this time.
Accordingly, and consistent with 42 CFR 70.2, 71.31(b), and 71.32(b), the Director of CDC (“Director”) continues to find that cruise ship travel exacerbates the global spread of COVID-19, that the scope of this pandemic is inherently and necessarily a problem that is international and interstate in nature, and such transmission has not been controlled sufficiently by the cruise ship industry or individual State or local health authorities. As described in the March 14, 2020, Order, cruise ship travel markedly increases the risk and impact of the COVID-19 disease epidemic within the United States. If unrestricted cruise ship passenger operations were permitted to resume, infected and exposed persons disembarking cruise ships would place federal partners (
The Director also continues to find evidence to support a reasonable belief that cruise ships are or may be infected or contaminated with a quarantinable communicable disease.
Accordingly, under 42 CFR 70.2, the Director determines that measures taken by State and local health authorities regarding COVID-19 onboard cruise ships are inadequate to prevent the further interstate spread of the disease.
This Order is not a rule within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), but rather an emergency action taken under the existing authority of 42 CFR 70.2, 71.31(b), and 71.32(b). In the event that this Order qualifies as a rule under the APA, notice and comment and a delay in effective date are not required because there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and the opportunity to comment on this Order.
If any provision in this Order, or the application of any provision to any carriers, persons, or circumstances, shall be held invalid, the remainder of the provisions, or the application of such provisions to any carriers, persons, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall remain valid and in effect.
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 264(e), this Order shall supersede any provision under State law (including regulations and provisions established by political subdivisions of States), that conflict with an exercise of Federal authority, including instructions by U.S. Coast Guard or HHS/CDC personnel permitting ships to make port or disembark persons under stipulated conditions, under this Order.
This Order shall be enforceable through the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559, 3571; 42 U.S.C. 243, 268, 271; and 42 CFR 70.18, 71.2.
Therefore, in accordance with Sections 361 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, 268) and 42 CFR 70.2, 71.31(b), 71.32(b), for all cruise ships described above for the period described below, it is
These measures were implemented to provide public health authorities, in concert with the cruise ship industry, the necessary pause in operations to develop and implement an appropriate and robust plan (1) to prevent and mitigate the further spread of COVID-19 in communities, and (2) to prevent the spread of the disease onboard and ensure the health of cruise ship passenger and crew.
Accordingly, the following terms and conditions of the
1. Cruise ship operators shall not disembark or reembark crew members except as directed by the USCG, in consultation with HHS/CDC personnel and, as appropriate, as coordinated with Federal, State, and local authorities.
2. Cruise ship operators shall not embark any new passengers or crew, except as approved by USCG, or other Federal authorities as appropriate, in consultation with HHS/CDC personnel.
3. While in port, the cruise ship operator shall observe health precautions as directed by HHS/CDC personnel.
4. The cruise ship operator shall comply with all HHS/CDC, USCG, and other Federal agency instructions to follow CDC recommendations and guidance for any public health actions relating to passengers, crew, ship, or any article or thing on board the ship, as needed, including by making ships' manifests and logs available and collecting any specimens for COVID-19 testing.
These measures were implemented to, among other things, ensure a safe environment for crew members to work and disembark by requiring the submission of appropriate NSO response plans by cruise ship operators as a condition of obtaining controlled free pratique
Accordingly, the terms and conditions of the
1. As a condition of obtaining controlled free pratique to continue to engage in any cruise ship operations in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cruise ship operators shall develop, implement, and operationalize, an appropriate, actionable, and robust plan to prevent, mitigate, and respond to the spread of COVID-19 among crew onboard cruise ships.
2. As a condition of obtaining controlled free pratique to continue to engage in any cruise ship operations in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the cruise ship operator shall make the plan described in paragraph 1, above, available to HHS/CDC and USCG personnel.
3. An appropriate plan is one that adequately prevents, mitigates, and responds to the spread of COVID-19 among crew onboard cruise ships and that, at a minimum, addresses the following elements:
a. Onboard surveillance of crew with acute respiratory illnesses, influenza-like illnesses, pneumonia, and COVID-19, including reporting to HHS/CDC on a weekly basis on overall case counts, methods of testing, and number of crew requiring hospitalization or medical evacuation;
b. Reports on the number of crew onboard the cruise ship and any increase in the numbers of crew with COVID-19 made to HHS/CDC and USCG on a daily basis for as long as the cruise ship is within waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
c. Onboard monitoring of crew through temperature checks and medical screening, including addressing frequency of monitoring and screening;
d. Training of all crew on COVID-19 prevention, mitigation, and response activities;
e. Protocols for any COVID-19 testing, including details relating to the shore-side transport, administration, and operationalization of laboratory work if onboard laboratory work is not feasible;
f. Onboard isolation, quarantine, and social distancing protocols to minimize the risk of transmission and spread of COVID-19;
g. Onboard medical staffing, including number and type of staff, and equipment in sufficient quantity to provide a hospital level of care (
h. An outbreak management and response plan to provision and assist an affected cruise ship that relies on industry resources,
i. Categorization of affected crew into risk categories with clear stepwise approaches for care and management of each category;
j. A medical care plan addressing onboard care versus evacuation to on-shore hospitals for critically ill crew, specifying how availability of beds for critically ill at local hospitals will be determined in advance and how the cruise ship operator will ensure acceptance at local medical facilities to treat the critically ill in a manner that limits the burden on Federal, State, and local resources and avoids, to the greatest extent possible, medivac situations. If medical evacuation is necessary arrangements for evacuation must be made with commercial resources (
k. Detailed logistical planning for evacuating and repatriating both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals to their respective communities and home countries via foreign government or industry-chartered private transport and flights, including the steps the cruise ship operator will take to ensure those involved in the transport are not exposed (
l. The projected logistical and resource impact on State and local government and public health authorities and steps taken to minimize the impact and engage with these authorities; all plans must provide for industry/cruise line management of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 without resource burden on Federal, State, or local governments;
m. Plan execution in all U.S. geographical areas—all plans must be capable of being executed anywhere in international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and
n. Cleaning and disinfection protocols for affected cruise ships.
4. An appropriate plan shall be designed to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, any impact on U.S. government operations or the operations of any State or local government, or the U.S. healthcare system.
5. The cruise ship operator shall further ensure that the plan is consistent with the most current CDC recommendations and guidance for any public health actions related to COVID-19. Where appropriate, a cruise ship operator may coordinate the development, implementation, and operationalization of a plan with other cruise ship operators, including an industry trade group.
These measures were intended to continue to protect U.S. communities, ensure a safe environment for crew to work and disembark, and defer the embarkation of passengers until there is a clear pathway for a safe return to passenger operations.
Accordingly, the terms and conditions of the
Consequently, it remains
1. Cruise ship operators shall continue to suspend passenger operations and not embark passengers, except as approved by HHS/CDC personnel and USCG, in consultation with other federal authorities as appropriate.
2. As a condition of obtaining or retaining controlled free pratique to operate in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cruise ship operators shall continue to follow CDC's
3. For cruise ship operators with ships that have not been in U.S. waters during the period of the No Sail Order or voluntarily withdrew their ships, the following conditions must be met prior to a ship returning to U.S. waters: (1) submission of the EDC form for 28-days preceding expected arrival in U.S. waters; and (2) having a complete and accurate NSO response plan, including having submitted to CDC a signed
4. As a condition of obtaining or retaining controlled free pratique to operate in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cruise ship operators with appropriate NSO response plans shall continue to follow the
5. As a condition of obtaining or retaining controlled free pratique to operate in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cruise ship operators with appropriate NSO response plans shall conduct viral testing for COVID-19 for crew in such a manner as described in the relevant CDC guidance with reporting of results on the EDC form.
6. As a condition of obtaining or retaining controlled free pratique to operate in any international, interstate, or intrastate waterways that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cruise ship operators must observe the requirements of this Order, the previous Orders, and the most current CDC
This Order is effective upon signature and shall remain in effect until the earliest of (1) the expiration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' declaration that COVID-19 constitutes a public health emergency; (2) the CDC Director rescinds or modifies the order based on specific public health or other considerations; or (3) October 31, 2020.
The authority for these orders is Sections 361 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264, 268) and 42 CFR 70.2, 71.31(b), 71.32(b).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the revocations of the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) issued to Autobio Diagnostics Co. Ltd. (“Autobio”) for the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test (“Autobio's Test”) and to Manufacturers and Other Stakeholders (“Stakeholders”) for certain in vitro diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests. FDA revoked Autobio's Authorization on August 6, 2020, and the Stakeholders' Authorization on July 21, 2020, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The revocations, which include an explanation of the reasons for each revocation, are reprinted in this document.
Autobio's Authorization is revoked as of August 6, 2020. The Stakeholders' Authorization is revoked as of July 21, 2020.
Submit written requests for single copies of the revocations to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a Fax number to which the revocations may be sent. See the
Jennifer J. Ross, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8155 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. On April 24, 2020, FDA issued an EUA for Autobio's Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test, subject to the terms of the Authorization. On April 28, 2020, FDA issued an EUA to Stakeholders, for certain in vitro diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests (lateral flow or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests to detect IgG only, IgG and IgM, or total antibodies in human plasma and/or serum) for use at laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 263a, to perform moderate or high complexity tests. Notice of the issuance of the Authorizations was published in the
Under section 564(g)(2)(B) and (C) of the FD&C Act, the Secretary of HHS may revoke an EUA if, among other things, the criteria for issuance are no longer met or other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety. On August 6, 2020, FDA revoked the EUA for Autobio's Test because the criteria for issuance were no longer met and other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety. Under section 564(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, an EUA may be issued only if FDA concludes that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing such disease or condition and that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
Given the poor device performance observed in the NCI study since the issuance of the Authorization for Autobio's Test, FDA has concluded it is not reasonable to believe the product may be effective in detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 or that the known and potential benefits of the device outweigh its known and potential risks. In addition, based on the same information and the risks to public health from false test results, FDA has concluded under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act that other circumstances make revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety. Accordingly, FDA has revoked EUA200349 for Autobio's Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test, pursuant to section 564(g)(2)(B) and (C) of the FD&C Act. On July 21, 2020, FDA revoked the EUA for Stakeholders' certain in vitro diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests because other circumstances make such revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety (section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act), considering that no device has been listed under the EUA, and FDA can issue individual EUAs instead.
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the revocations are available on the internet
Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the Authorizations under section 564(g) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has revoked the EUAs for Autobio's Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Test and Stakeholders' certain in vitro diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests. The revocations in their entirety follow and provide an explanation of the reasons for each revocation, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting; postponement.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is postponing the meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee scheduled from October 7, 2020, to a later date to be determined. The meeting was announced in the
Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
The meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee was originally announced in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30 day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than November 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
Deemed PHS employment provides the covered individual with immunity from lawsuits and related civil actions resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, and related functions within the scope of deemed employment.
Health centers must submit to HRSA an annual deeming sponsorship application on behalf of their individually named volunteers. For deeming to apply, such annual applications for each individual volunteer must be approved by HRSA, and deeming status for liability protections to apply during the calendar year is documented by a Notice of Deeming Action.
HRSA is proposing several changes to the Application for Deemed Health Center Program Award Recipients to Sponsor VHPs for Deemed PHS Employment, to be used for deeming sponsorship applications for Calendar Year 2022 and thereafter, to improve question clarity, clarify required documentation, and support HRSA's analysis and understanding of program impact. Specifically, the Application includes the following proposed changes:
•
•
•
The FTCA Program has a web based application system, the Electronic Handbooks. These electronic application forms decrease the time and effort required to complete the older, paper-based OMB approved FTCA application forms. The application includes Acknowledgments of Deemed Status Requirements, Acknowledgment of Required Performance Conditions, and Information on the Volunteers Sponsored for Deeming.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public via NIH Videocast. The URL link to this meeting is
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0002, Applications for Vessel Inspection, Waiver, and Continuous Synopsis Record; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0098], and must be received by November 4, 2020.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 44914, July 24, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
• CG-2633, Application for Waiver and Waiver Order.
• CG-3752, Application for Inspection of U.S. Vessel.
• CG-6039, Application for Continuous Synopsis Record.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0062, Approval of Alterations to Marine Portable Tanks; Approval of Non-Specification Portable Tanks; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2020-0618] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0618], and must be received by December 4, 2020.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0064, Plan Approval and Records for Subdivision and Stability Regulations; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2020-0100], and must be received by November 4, 2020.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will be posted without change to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 44914, July 24, 2020) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of delegation of authority.
Through this notice, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development delegates to the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management and to the Director for Field Policy and Management authority for the management and oversight of the Department's field operations.
John B. Shumway, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Law Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, at 451 7th Street SW, Room 9262; Washington, DC 20410-0500 or telephone number 202-402- 5190 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877- 8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Previous delegations of authority from the Secretary of HUD to the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management are hereby revoked and superseded, including the delegations published on September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48649).
Section A. Authority
a. Coordinate the implementation of the Department's policies and programs in the field in consultation with field program directors. Program coordination does not mean program decision-making but, rather, collecting local information, measuring community impact, initiating cross-program communication and coordination, and facilitating the resolution of potential program differences through the appropriate channels, if necessary.
b. Manage and assess field resources to ensure that operations are efficient and effective.
c. Coordinate and convey the Strategic Plan and Regional or Local Operating Plans with the field.
d. Advise the Secretary on policy and management of the field.
e. Consult with program directors regarding implementation of departmental management goals, secretarial and presidential initiatives, and Annual Performance commitments.
The delegated authority related to the Promise Zone Initiative does not include the authority to issue or waive Notices of Funding Availability or the equivalent, regulations, or statutes, but does include the authority to redelegate the authority provided.
The delegated authority related to the EnVision Center Demonstration does not include the authority to issue or waive Notices of Funding Availability or the equivalent, regulations, or statutes, but does include the authority to redelegate the authority provided.
Section B. Authority To Redelegate
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management and the Director for Field Policy and Management are authorized to redelegate to employees of HUD any of the authority delegated under section A above.
Section C. Authority Superseded
This Delegation supersedes all previous delegations from the Secretary of HUD to the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to recover and enhance endangered species survival. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), prohibits certain activities that may impact endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive your written comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Classification and Restoration Division, 505-248-6641. Individuals who are hearing or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite
With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of endangered species in the wild. Section 10(c) of the ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of renewal.
The U.S. Department of the Interior announces the charter renewal of the
The Court Order establishing the
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), and in consultation with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of the Interior hereby renews the charter for the
Dr. Philip Johnson, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 C Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-5126, 907-227-3783.
Interior Region 11, Bureau of Land Management.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska Resource Advisory Council (RAC), Subcommittee on Public Lands, will meet as indicated below.
The Alaska RAC's Subcommittee on Public Lands will hold virtual meetings on November 17 and 18, 2020, and again on February 9 and 10, 2021. The approximate meeting times are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the first day meetings and 8 a.m. to noon for the second day meetings, with public comment periods being held each day. However, the meetings could end earlier or later depending on the needs of group members.
The meetings will be held online through the Zoom meeting application. People wishing to participate in the meetings can contact the RAC Coordinator for the link or call-in number at
Melinda Bolton by telephone at (907) 271-3342, or by email at
The 15-member Alaska RAC serves in an advisory capacity concerning issues relating to land use planning or the management of the public land resources located within the State of Alaska. The 8-member Subcommittee on Public Lands was established to gather information, conduct research, and analyze relevant issues and facts on selected topics for future consideration by the RAC. The Subcommittee's primary goal is to provide information to the RAC that will allow it to better respond to time-sensitive issues, such as resource management plans, arctic activity, conveyances, minerals, subsistence management, and recreation. No decisions are made at the subcommittee level. All meetings are open to the public in their entirety. The Designated Federal Officer will attend the call, take minutes, and publish these detailed meeting minutes on the RAC web page.
The public may send written comments to the Subcommittee in response to material presented on the call to be forwarded to the RAC for consideration. Comments can be mailed to: BLM Alaska State Office, Office of Communications, Attn: Melinda Bolton; 222 W 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513.
Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Council during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the DFO prior to the public comment period. Depending on the number of people who wish to speak and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited.
Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meetings, need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations may contact Melinda Bolton at the phone number or email address listed earlier (see
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before September 19, 2020, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by October 20, 2020.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before September 19, 2020. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
Josephine County
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 31, 2020, under section 337 of
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Katherine Hiner, Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 of the '662 patent; claims 1-14 of the '703 patent; claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-24 of the '771 patent; and claims 1-11 and 13-22 of the '185 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “stud finders, metal detectors and electrical scanners for use in the home and commercial repair, construction, improvement and interior décor industry”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Zircon Corporation, 1580 Dell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-658-659 and 731-TA-1538-1542 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of aluminum foil from Armenia, Brazil, Oman, Russia, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7607.11.30, 7607.11.60, 7607.11.90, and 7607.19.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Oman and Turkey. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by November 13, 2020. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 20, 2020.
September 29, 2020.
Celia Feldpausch ((202) 205-2387), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 5) of the presiding administrative law judge
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On August 10, 2020, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Corporation both of Espoo, Finland (collectively, “Nokia”). 85 FR 48263-64 (Aug. 10, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including computers, tablet computers, and components and modules thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,144,764; 7,532,808; 6,950,469; 7,724,818; and 8,583,706 (“the '706 patent”).
On August 12, 2020, Google filed a motion to intervene in this investigation as to the '706 patent, asserting that it has an interest in infringement and invalidity issues regarding that patent. On August 24, 2020, Nokia, Lenovo, and OUII filed responses not opposing Google's intervention.
On September 4, 2020, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion. The ID notes Commission Rule 210.19, which provides that “[a]ny person desiring to intervene in an investigation” may file a motion before the administrative law judge, who “may grant the motion to the extent and upon such terms as may be proper under the circumstances.” 19 CFR 210.19. The ID finds that no dispute exists that (1) “Google's motion to intervene was timely, having been filed two days after the institution of the investigation”; (2) “Google has an interest in infringement and invalidity issues regarding the '706 patent”; and (3) “Google's interests are not adequately protected by the other parties in this investigation.” ID at 5. While Google seeks intervention only as to the '706 patent, the ID finds that “the record does not support a limited intervention” and that “Google's intervention may be useful with respect to all the patents, not only the '706 patent.”
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. Google is hereby an intervenor.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 29, 2020.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 31, 2020, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of The Regents of the University of California, Oakland, California. A supplement to the complaint was filed on September 21, 2020. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain filament light-emitting diodes and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,240,529 (“the '529 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,859,464 (“the '464 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,593,854 (“the '854 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,644,213 (“the '213 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,658,557 (“the '557 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia Proctor, Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 29, 2020,
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “light bulbs containing filament LEDs and lighting products containing filament LEDs”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: The Regents of the University of California, 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94607.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ).
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The DOJ, FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until December 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If additional information is required, contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
On September 29, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves the Untied States' claims set forth in the Complaint against Chemtronics, Inc. (“Chemtronics”) and Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. (“NGSC”) for injunctive relief and cost recovery under Sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) relating to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment, and for performance of response actions under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) relating to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid and/or hazardous wastes at or from the Chemtronics Superfund Site (the “Site”), located in the community of Swannanoa, in Buncombe County, North Carolina. Under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, Defendants will reimburse $255,348.51 of the costs incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Defendants also will reimburse EPA for its future responses at the Site and will perform the work set forth in the second amendment to the 1988 Record of Decision issued by EPA on September 29, 2016.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $10.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. The document does not contain the exhibits and signature pages.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until December 4, 2020.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendant EPG2, LLC, pursuant to Sections 301(a), 309(b), and 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1319(b), and 1319(d), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendant for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendant to perform mitigation and pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Phillip R. Dupré, United States Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, James M. Ashley and Thomas W. L. Ashley U.S. Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch Avenue, Toledo, OH 43604. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Partial Consent Decree in
This proposed Partial Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendants Paul Bunn and Snyder Logging and Landscaping, LLC, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive relief from, and impose civil penalties against, the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Partial Consent Decree resolves these allegations against Snyder Logging and Landscaping, LLC (“Snyder Logging”) by requiring Snyder Logging to pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Partial Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Alan D. Greenberg, United States Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, 999 18th Street, Suite 370, Denver, CO 80202 and refer to
The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Montana, Russell Smith Federal Courthouse, 201 E Broadway Street, Suite 410, Missoula, MT 59802. In addition, the proposed Partial
On September, 29, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the lawsuit entitled
In this action, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, filed a Complaint and proposed Consent Decree pertaining to Clean Water Act violations at the Defendant's horse racing facility in New Orleans, Louisiana. In the Complaint, the United States alleged that the Defendant discharged process wastewater from its horse-racing and stabling facility, a concentrated animal feeding operation, into the New Orleans municipal separate storm sewer system and other receiving waters in violation of the terms and conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to the Defendant under Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342. Under the proposed settlement, the Defendant will pay $2,790,000.00 in civil penalties and perform injunctive relief to bring its facility into compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations to prevent future unauthorized discharges to area waterways.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $21.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On September 29, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Settlement Agreement with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the matter of
The proposed Settlement Agreement resolves the proof of claim filed by the United States on behalf of EPA, asserting a general unsecured claim for (a) $2,002,200 in stipulated penalties under a consent decree between the United States and Debtor in United States
The proposed Settlement Agreement also resolves the United States' Motion for Allowance of Administrative Expense Claim, Doc. No. 282, which was amended, Doc. No. 422, asserting an administrative claim in the amount of $5,531,521.10, under Section 503(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), relating to response costs incurred after the Petition Date addressing releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the TCC Site.
The proposed Settlement Agreement provides the United States an allowed administrative expense claim in the amount of $930,000 plus 83.7% of certain additional funds in the estate. In addition, the proposed Settlement Agreement provides the United States an allowed general unsecured claim of $11,826.14 with respect to pre-petition response costs and $2,002,200 with respect to stipulated penalties.
The proposed Settlement Agreement also provides certain recovery rights for New York DOL based on its claims under the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, New York Labor Law §§ 860-860-I and certain recovery rights for general unsecured creditors based on general unsecured claims filed in the bankruptcy.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments on the proposed resolution of the United States' claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On September 29, 2020, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve claims the United States and State of Colorado have brought pursuant to Sections 106, 107(a) and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a) and 9613(g)(2), against TCI Pacific Communications, LLC (“TCI”) related to Operable Unit 1 (“OU1”) of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site (“Site”) located approximately five miles south of Minturn, Colorado.
The Consent Decree requires TCI to meet water treatment standards for arsenic and other metals at the Site's water treatment plant, collect and treat contaminated groundwater from defined areas, obtain institutional controls to restrict activities that would interfere with the remedy, conduct defined operation and maintenance activities, and pay future EPA response costs.
The Consent Decree provides TCI and certain related persons covenants not to sue relating to the OU1 under Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $27.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.75.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Wyoming.
The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
• Wyoming's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the week ending August 15, 2020, was 4.99 percent, falling below the 5.00 percent threshold necessary to remain “on” EB.
• However, Wyoming's mandatory 13-week “on” period does not expire until September 19, 2020. Therefore, the EB period for Wyoming will end on September 19, 2020. The state will remain in an “off” period for a minimum of 13 weeks.
The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing claims for EB of the forthcoming termination of the EB period and its effect on the individual's right to EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)).
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Room S-4524, Attn: Thomas Stengle, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-2991 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
Signed in Washington, DC.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003. The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies the criteria and methodology
Section 608(b)(2) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2) (the Act).
In accordance with section 608(b)(2) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(b)(2)), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is submitting the enclosed report. This report identifies the criteria and methodology that MCC intends to use to determine which candidate countries may be eligible to be considered for assistance under the Act for fiscal year 2021.
Under section 608(c)(1) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7707(c)(1)), MCC will, for a thirty-day period following publication, accept and consider public comment for purposes of determining eligible countries under section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706).
This document explains how the Board of Directors (the Board) of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will identify, evaluate, and select eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2021. Specifically, this document discusses the following:
This report is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the Act), as more fully described in Appendix A.
MCC evaluates the policy performance of all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries by dividing them into two income categories for the purposes of creating “scorecards.” These categories are used to account for the income bias that occurs when countries with more per capita resources perform better than countries with fewer. In FY 2021, those scorecard evaluation income categories
• Countries whose gross national income (GNI) per capita is $1,945 or less; and
• Countries whose GNI per capita is between $1,946 and $4,045.
Appendix B lists all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries for scorecard evaluation purposes.
The Board looks at three legislatively-mandated factors when it evaluates any candidate country for compact eligibility: (1) Policy performance; (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth; and (3) the availability of MCC funds.
Appendix C describes all 20 indicators, their definitions, what is required to “pass,” their source, and their relationship to the legislative criteria. Because of the importance of evaluating a country's policy performance in a comparable, cross-country way, the Board relies to the maximum extent possible upon the best-available objective and quantifiable policy performance indicators. These indicators act as proxies for a country's commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in its people, per MCC's founding legislation. Comprised of 20 third-party indicators in the categories of ruling justly, encouraging economic freedom, and investing in people, MCC scorecards are created for all candidate countries and statutorily-prohibited countries. To “pass” most indicators on its scorecard, a country's score on each indicator must be above the median score
• passed at least 10 of the 20 indicators, with at least one pass in each of the three categories,
• passed either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties indicator; and
• passed the Control of Corruption indicator.
While satisfaction of all three aspects means a country is termed to have “passed” the scorecard, the Board also considers whether the country performs “substantially worse” in any one policy category than it does on the scorecard overall.
The mandatory passing of either the Political Rights or Civil Liberties indicators is called the Democratic Rights “hard hurdle” on the scorecard, while the mandatory passing of the Control of Corruption indicator is called the Control of Corruption “hard hurdle.” Not passing either “hard hurdle” results in not passing the scorecard overall, regardless of whether at least 10 of the 20 other indicators are passed.
•
•
Together, the 20 policy performance indicators are the predominant basis for determining which eligible countries will be selected for MCC assistance, and the Board expects a country to be passing its scorecard at the point the Board decides to select the country for either a first or second/subsequent compact. The Board, however, also recognizes that even the best-available data has inherent challenges. Data gaps, real-time events versus data lags, the absence of narratives and nuanced detail, and other similar weaknesses affect each of these indicators. As such, the Board uses its judgment to interpret policy performance as measured by the scorecards. The Board may also consult other sources of information to enhance its understanding of a country's policy performance beyond scorecard issues (
While the Board considers a range of other information sources depending on the country, specific areas of attention typically include better understanding issues and trends in, and trajectory of:
• The state of democratic and human rights (especially vulnerable groups
• civil society's perspective on salient governance issues;
• the control of corruption and rule of law;
• the potential for the private sector (both local and foreign) to lead investment and growth;
• poverty levels within a country; and
• the country's institutional capacity.
Where applicable, the Board also considers MCC's own experience and ability to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in a given country—such as considering MCC's core skills versus a country's needs, and MCC's capacity to work with a country.
This information provides greater clarity on the likelihood that MCC programs will have an appreciable impact on reducing poverty by generating economic growth in a given country. The Board has used such information to better understand when a country's performance on a particular indicator may not be up to date or is about to change. It has also used it to decline to select countries that are otherwise passing their scorecards. More details on this subject (sometimes referred to as “supplemental information”) can be found on MCC's website:
The final factor that the Board must consider when evaluating countries is the available funds. The agency's budget allocation is constrained, and often specifically limited, by provisions in our authorizing legislation and appropriations acts. MCC has a continuous pipeline of countries in compact development, compact implementation, threshold programs, and compact closure. Consequently, the Board factors in MCC's overall portfolio when making its selection decisions given the funding available for each planned or existing program.
The following subsections describe how each of these three legislatively-mandated factors are applied by the Board at the December Board meeting: Selection of countries for a compact, selection of countries for a second or subsequent compact, selection of countries for the threshold program, and selection of countries for a concurrent compact. A note follows on considerations for countries that might transition to upper middle income country status after initial selection.
When selecting eligible countries for a compact, the Board looks at all three legislatively-mandated aspects described in the previous section: (1) Policy performance, first and foremost as measured by the scorecards and bolstered through additional information (as described in the previous section); (2) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, examined through the use of other supporting information (as described in the previous section); and (3) available funding.
At a minimum, the Board considers whether a country passes its scorecard. It also examines supporting evidence that a country's commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in its people is on a sound footing and performance is on a positive trajectory (especially on the “hard hurdles” of Democratic Rights and Control of Corruption), and that MCC has the funds to support a meaningful compact with that country. Where applicable, previous threshold program information is also considered. The Board then weighs the information described above across each of the three dimensions.
During the compact development period following initial selection, the Board reevaluates a selected country based on this same approach.
Section 609(l) of the Act specifically authorizes MCC to enter into “one or more subsequent Compacts.” MCC does not consider the eligibility of a country for a subsequent compact, however, before the country has completed its compact or is within 18 months of compact completion, (
To evaluate the previous compact's success, the Board examines whether the compact succeeded within its budget and time limits, in particular by looking at three aspects:
•
•
•
Details on the specific information types examined and sources used in each of the three areas are provided in Appendix D. Overall, the Board is looking for evidence that the previous compact will be or has been completed on time and on budget, and that there is a commitment to continued, robust reform going forward.
The Board also expects the country to have improved its overall scorecard policy performance during the partnership, and to pass the scorecard in the year of selection for the subsequent compact. The Board focuses on the following:
• The overall scorecard pass/fail rate over time, and what this suggests about underlying policy performance, as well as an examination of the underlying reasons;
• The progress over time on policy areas measured by both hard-hurdle indicators—Democratic Rights and Control of Corruption—including an examination of the underlying reasons; and
• Other indicator trajectories deemed relevant by the Board.
In all cases, while the Board expects the country to be passing its scorecard, other sources of information are examined to understand the nuance and reasons behind scorecard or indicator performance over time, including any real-time updates, methodological changes within the indicators themselves, shifts in the relevant candidate pool, or alternative policy performance perspectives (such as gleaned through consultations with civil society and related stakeholders). Other information sources are also consulted to look at policy performance over time in areas not covered by the scorecard, but that are deemed important by the Board (such as trade, foreign policy concerns, etc.).
The Board expects that subsequent compacts will endeavor to tackle deeper policy reforms necessary to unlock an identified constraint to growth. Consequently, the Board considers its own experience during the previous compact in considering how committed the country is to reducing poverty and increasing economic growth, and tries to gauge the country's commitment to further sector reform should it be selected for a subsequent compact. This includes:
• Assessing the country's delivery of policy reform during the previous compact (as described above);
• Assessing expectations of the country's ability and willingness to continue embarking on sector policy reform in a subsequent compact;
• Examining both other information sources describing the opportunity to reduce poverty by generating growth (as outlined in A.2 above), and the first compact's relative success overall, as already discussed; and
• Finally, considering how well funding can be leveraged for impact, given the country's experience in the previous compact.
Through this overall approach to selection for a subsequent compact, the Board applies the three legislatively mandated evaluation criteria (policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and available funds) in a way that assesses the previous partnership from a compact success standpoint, a commitment to improved scorecard policy performance standpoint, and a commitment to continued sector policy reform standpoint. The Board then weighs all of the information described above in making a decision.
During the compact development period following initial selection, the Board reevaluates a selected country based on this same approach.
Section 609(k) of the Act authorizes MCC to enter into one additional concurrent compact with a country if one or both of the compacts with the country is for the purpose of regional economic integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations.
The fundamental criteria and process for the selection of countries for such compacts remains the same as those for the selection of countries for non-concurrent compacts: countries continue to be evaluated and selected individually, as described in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F.
Section 609(k) also requires as a precondition for a concurrent compact that the Board determine that the country is making “considerable and demonstrable progress in implementing the terms of the existing Compact and supplementary agreements thereto.” This statutory requirement is fully consistent with prior Board practice regarding the selection of a country for a non-concurrent compact. For a country where a concurrent compact is contemplated, the Board will take into account whether there is clear evidence of success, as relevant to the phase of the current compact. Among other information, the Board will examine the evaluation criteria described in Section II.C.1 above, notably:
• The degree to which there is evidence of strong political will and management capacity;
• The degree to which the country has exhibited commitment and capacity to achieve program results; and
• The degree to which the country has implemented the compact in accordance with MCC's core policies and standards.
In addition to providing information to the Board so it can make its determination regarding the country's progress in implementing its current compact, MCC will provide the Board with additional information relating to the potential for regional economic integration, increased regional trade, or cross-border collaborations for any country being considered for a concurrent compact. This information may include items such as:
• The current state of a country's regional integration, such as common financial and political dialogue frameworks, integration of productive value chains, and cross-border flows of people, goods, and services.
• The current and potential level of trade between a country and its neighbors, including analysis of trade flows and unexploited potential for trade, and an assessment of the extent and significance of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including information regarding the patterns of trade.
• The potential gains from cross-border cooperation between a country and its neighbors to alleviate bilateral and regional bottlenecks to economic growth and poverty reduction, such as through physical infrastructure or coordinated policy and institutional reforms.
The Board can then weigh all information as a whole—the fundamental selection factors described in sections II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.F, the information regarding implementation of the current compact, and any additional relevant information regarding potential regional integration—to determine whether or not to direct MCC to seek to enter into a concurrent compact with a country.
The Board may also evaluate countries for participation in the threshold program. Threshold programs provide assistance to candidate countries exhibiting a significant commitment to meeting the criteria described in the previous subsections, but failing to meet such requirements. Specifically, in examining a candidate country's policy performance, the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth, and available funds, the Board will consider whether a country appears to be on a trajectory to becoming viable for compact eligibility in the medium or short term.
Some candidate countries may have a high per capita income or a high growth rate that implies there is a chance they could transition to UMIC status during the life of an MCC partnership. In such cases, it is not possible to accurately predict if or when such country may transition to UMIC status.
Nonetheless, such countries may have more resources at their disposal for funding their own growth and poverty reduction strategies. As a result, in addition to using the regular selection criteria described in the previous sections, the Board will also use its discretion to assess both the need and the opportunity presented by partnering with such a country, in order to ensure that there is a higher bar for possible selection.
Specifically, if a candidate country with a high probability of transitioning to UMIC status is under consideration for selection, the Board will examine additional data and information related to the following:
• Whether the country faces significant challenges accessing other sources of development financing (such as international capital, domestic resources, and other donor assistance) and, if so, whether MCC grant financing would be an appropriate tool;
• Whether the nature of poverty in the country (for example, high inequality or poverty headcount ratios relative to peer countries) presents a clear and strategic opportunity for MCC to assist the country in reducing such poverty through projects that spur economic growth;
• Whether the country demonstrates particularly strong policy performance, including policies and actions that demonstrate a clear priority on poverty reduction; and
• Whether MCC can reasonably expect that the country would contribute a significant amount of funding to the compact.
These additional criteria would then be applied in any additional years of selection as the country continues to develop its compact. Should a country eventually transition to UMIC status during compact development, a country would no longer be a candidate for selection for that fiscal year. Continuing compact development beyond that point would then be at the Board's discretion.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(b) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended (the Act), 22 U.S.C. 7707(b).
Section 605 of the Act authorizes the provision of assistance to countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries in achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries for compact assistance for FY 2021 based on the countries' demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom, and investing in their people, MCC's opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and the availability of funds. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and publication of information in the
(1) The countries that are “candidate countries” for assistance for FY 2021 based on per capita income levels and eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law (section 608(a) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(a));
(2) The criteria and methodology that MCC's Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate policy performance of the candidate countries consistent with the requirements of section 607 of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7706) in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(b)); and
(3) The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2021, with justification for eligibility determination and selection for compact negotiation, including those eligible countries with which MCC will seek to enter into compacts (section 608(d) of the Act; 22 U.S.C. 7707(d)).
This report satisfies item 2 above.
Since MCC was created, it has relied on the
MCC will continue to use the historical IDA classifications for eligibility to categorize countries in two groups for purposes of FY 2021 scorecard comparisons:
• Countries with GNI per capita equal to or less than IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility (
• Countries with GNI per capita above IDA's historical ceiling for eligibility but below the World Bank's upper middle income country threshold (
The list of countries for FY 2021 scorecard assessments is set forth below:
The following indicators will be used to measure candidate countries' demonstrated commitment to the criteria found in section 607(b) of the Act. The indicators are intended to assess the degree to which the political and economic conditions in a country serve to promote broad-based sustainable economic growth and reduction of poverty and thus provide a sound environment for the use of MCC funds. The indicators are not goals in themselves; rather, they are proxy measures of policies that are linked to broad-based sustainable economic growth. The indicators were selected based on (i) their relationship to economic growth and poverty reduction; (ii) the number of countries they cover; (iii) transparency and availability; and (iv) relative soundness and objectivity. Where possible, the indicators are developed by independent sources. Listed below is a brief summary of the indicators (a detailed rationale for the adoption of these indicators can be found in the Public Guide to the Indicators on MCC's public website at
Within each policy category, the Act sets out a number of specific selection criteria. A set of objective and quantifiable policy indicators is used to inform eligibility decisions for assistance and to measure the relative performance by candidate countries against these criteria. The Board's approach to determining eligibility ensures that performance against each of these criteria is assessed by at least one of the objective indicators. Most are addressed by multiple indicators. The specific indicators appear in parentheses next to the corresponding criterion set out in the Act.
MCC reporting and data in the following chart are used to assess compact performance of MCC compact countries nearing the end of compact implementation (
For completed compacts, additional information is used to assess compact performance and is found in a country's Star Report. The Star Report and its associated quarterly business process capture key information to provide a framework for results and improve the ability to disseminate learning and evidence throughout the lifecycle of an MCC investment from selection to final evaluation. For each compact and threshold program, evidence is collected on performance indicators, evaluation results, partnerships, sustainability efforts, and learning, among other elements.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB Review, comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments about this assessment process, instructions, and data collections.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Dr. Marvin Carr, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Dr. Carr can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4752, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation's libraries and museums. We advance, support, and empower America's museums, libraries, and related organizations through grant making, research, and policy development. Our vision is a nation where museums and libraries work together to work together to transform the lives of individuals and communities. To learn more, visit
The agency seeks to undertake a systematic assessment to better understand the methods for building the capacity of these small and rural libraries and archives to serve their communities. The proposed evaluation approach is intended to provide a reasonable balance between scientific considerations for valid and reliable evidence and stakeholder utilization of the acquired knowledge. This investigation is intended to inform IMLS decision-making for current and future grant-making in this grant program, as well as practices in this segment of the library sector.
This action is to seek approval for the information collection for the Evaluation and Learning for IMLS's Applying Promising Practices for Small and Rural Libraries (APP) program for the next three years.
The 60-day notice for the Evaluation and Learning for IMLS's Applying Promising Practices for Small and Rural Libraries (APP) Program, was published in the
Each Wednesday of every month through Fiscal Year 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Changes in date and time will be posted at
During the pandemic, meetings will be held via video conferencing technology. If Board meetings resume in person, the Board will meet in the Board Agenda Room, No. 5065, 1015 Half St., SE, Washington DC. Any in-person meetings will be noted at
Closed.
Pursuant to § 102.139(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider “the issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or disposition . . . of particular representation or unfair labor practice proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.” See also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).
Roxanne L. Rothschild, Executive Secretary, 1015 Half Street SE, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1940.
Weeks of October 5, 12, 19, 26, November 2, 9, 2020.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 12, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 26, 2020.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 9, 2020.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or by email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Section 2(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a) provides for payments of age and service, disability, and supplemental annuities to qualified employees. An
To collect the information needed to help determine an applicant's entitlement to, and the amount of, an employee retirement annuity the RRB uses Forms AA-1,
The AA-1 application process obtains information from an applicant about their marital history, work history, military service, benefits from other governmental agencies, railroad pensions and Medicare entitlement for either an age and service or disability annuity. An RRB representative interviews the applicant either at a field office, an itinerant point, or by telephone. During the interview, the RRB representative enters the information obtained into an on-line information system. Upon completion of the interview, the on-line information system generates Form AA-1cert,
Form AA-1d,
2.
Under Section 2(e)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a), an age and service annuity, spouse annuity, or divorced spouse annuity cannot be paid unless the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has evidence that the applicant has ceased railroad employment and relinquished rights to return to the service of a railroad employer. Under Section 2(f)(6) of the RRA, earnings deductions are required for each month an annuitant works in certain non-railroad employment termed Last Pre-Retirement Non-Railroad Employment.
Normally, the employee, spouse, or divorced spouse relinquishes rights and certifies that employment has ended as part of the annuity application process. However, this is
3.
Under Section 5(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) (45 U.S.C. 355), claims for benefits are to be made in accordance with such regulations as the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) shall prescribe. The provisions for claiming sickness benefits as provided by Section 2 of the RUIA are prescribed in 20 CFR 335.2. Included in these provisions is the RRB's acceptance of forms executed by someone else on behalf of an employee if the RRB is satisfied that the employee is sick or injured to the extent of being unable to sign forms.
The RRB utilizes Form SI-10, Statement of Authority to Act for Employee, to provide the means for an individual to apply for authority to act on behalf of an incapacitated employee and also to obtain the information necessary to determine that the delegation should be made. Part I of the form is completed by the applicant for the authority and Part II is completed by the employee's doctor. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain benefits. The RRB proposes no changes to Form SI-10.
4.
Section 215(a)(7) of the Social Security Act provides for a reduction in social security benefits based on employment not covered under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA). This provision applies a different social security benefit formula to most workers who are first eligible after 1985 to both a pension based in whole or in part on non-covered employment and a social security retirement or disability benefit. There is a guarantee provision that limits the reduction in the social security benefit to one-half of the portion of the pension based on non-covered employment after 1956. Section 8011 of Public Law 100-647 changed the effective date of the onset from the first month of eligibility to the first month of concurrent entitlement to the non-covered service benefit and the RRA benefit.
Section 3(a)(1) of the RRA (45 U.S.C. 231b) provides that the Tier I benefit of an employee annuity shall be equal to the amount (before any reduction for age or deduction for work) the employee would receive if entitled to a like benefit under the Social Security Act. The reduction for a non-covered service pension also applies to a Tier I portion of the employee annuity under the RRA when the annuity or non-covered service pension begins after 1985. Since the amount of a spouse's Tier I benefit is one-half of the employee's Tier I, the spouse annuity is also affected.
Form G-209, Employee Non-Covered Service Pension Questionnaire, is used by the RRB to obtain needed information (1) from a railroad employee who while completing Form AA-1, Application for Employee Annuity (OMB No. 3220-0002), indicates entitlement to or receipt of a pension based on employment not covered under the Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act; or (2) from a railroad employee when an independently-entitled divorced spouse applicant believes the employee to be entitled to a non-covered service pension. However, this development is unnecessary if RRB records indicate the employee has 30 or more years of coverage; or (3) from an employee annuitant who becomes entitled to a pension based on employment not covered under the Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is required to obtain or retain benefits. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-209.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public via audio webcast only on the Commission's website at
The Commission will consider whether to issue a Notice, proposing to grant a conditional exemption, pursuant to Sections 15(a)(2) and 36(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), from the broker registration requirements of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act to permit natural persons to engage in certain limited activities on behalf of issuers, subject to conditions. The Commission would solicit comment on the proposed exemption, which seeks to assist small businesses in raising capital and provide regulatory clarity. Specifically, observers have noted that small businesses frequently encounter challenges connecting with investors in the exempt market, particularly in regions that lack robust capital raising networks. So-called “finders,” who may identify and in certain circumstances solicit potential investors, often play an important and discrete role in bridging the gap between small businesses that need capital and investors who are interested in supporting emerging enterprises.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202) 551-5400.
In notice document 2020-20359, published on pages 57893-57895, in the issue of Wednesday, September 16, 2020, make the following correction:
On page 57895, in the second column, beginning on the 16th line, “October 7,
2020September 16, 2020” should read “October 7, 2020”.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA—4558—DR), dated 08/22/2020.
Issued on 09/28/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of California, dated 08/22/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4558-DR), dated 08/22/2020.
Issued on 09/28/2020.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA, dated 08/22/2020, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
Small Business Administration collects this information from lenders who participate in the secondary market program. The information is used to facilitate and administer secondary market transactions in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 634(f)3 and to monitor the program for compliance with 15 U.S.C. 639(h).
Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before November 4, 2020.
Comments should refer to the information collection by title and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to:
Curtis Rich, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7030
(1)
Social Security Administration.
Notice; implementation of requirement.
In accordance with our rules, we are announcing a new requirement for representatives who request direct fee payment. A representative must submit all evidence electronically in claims for Social Security disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), and claims for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act, if the representative requests direct fee payment on that claim; the claim or case has an electronic folder; and the claim is pending at the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) or the Appeals Council. We expect electronic submission of this evidence will benefit claimants, representatives, and the Social Security Administration by improving our administrative efficiency and workload management, both during our COVID-19 health protocols and beyond.
We will apply this notice beginning on November 4, 2020.
Matthew Wright, Office of Hearings Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1608, Falls Church, VA 22041,
On September 12, 2011, we published final rules that require representatives to conduct business with us electronically at the times and in the manner we prescribe on matters for which the representative requests direct fee payment. (76 FR 56107). See 20 CFR 404.1713, 416.1513. At the time, we did not require representatives to use any specific electronic service. Rather, in the preamble to the final rule, we stated that, “[o]nce we determine that we should make a particular electronic service publicly available because it works well, we will publish a notice in the
First, on January 31, 2012 and March 8, 2012, we published notices requiring representatives requesting direct fee payment to file requests for reconsideration or requests for a hearing by an administrative law judge for disability claims electronically through the internet Appeals (iAppeals) portal. (77 FR 4653 and 77 FR 13968).
Second, on April 18, 2016, we published a notice announcing the requirement that, for claims with certified electronic folders pending at the hearing or Appeals Council levels, a representative must access and obtain a claimant's folder through Appointed Representative Services (ARS) in all matters for which the representative requests direct fee payment. (81 FR 22697). We implemented this requirement to:
(1) Improve administrative efficiency by eliminating the time-consuming task of providing compact disc copies of the electronic folder to representatives;
(2) Ensure that representatives provide the best possible service to claimants by using the most up-to-date information in the claims folder; and
(3) Manage the unprecedented workload pending at the hearings level and the Appeals Council.
Due to our COVID-19 pandemic protocols, we need to reduce our manual workloads, which require physical interaction with evidence. We are requiring appointed representatives who request direct fee payments to submit all evidence electronically through Electronic Records Express (ERE), ARS, or iAppeals in claims for Social Security disability insurance benefits under title II of the Act and claims for SSI payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act if: (1) The representative requests direct fee payment on that claim, (2) the claim or case has an electronic folder, and (3) the claim is pending at OHO or the Appeals Council.
We are implementing this requirement to ensure that representatives provide the best possible service to claimants through the use of our electronic services, and to allow us to effectively manage our workloads, particularly during the COVID-19 national public health emergency. We received approximately 14 million pieces of paper medical evidence and 36 million pieces of electronic medical evidence in fiscal year 2019. Submitting evidence electronically eliminates the need for our staff to process that evidence and manually associate it with the correct claims folder, promotes administrative efficiency, reduces the amount of paper evidence that requires physical handling and processing by our employees and contractors, and minimizes errors that may occur through manual processing. In addition, while we planned to issue this new requirement prior to the current COVID-19 national public health emergency, pursuing it now is even more critical because contactless transmission of evidence allows for maximum telework flexibilities and limits the need to handle documents manually.
Increasing the use of the electronic submission of evidence minimizes manual workloads in the administrative review process and allows us to direct staff resources toward resolution of cases pending, rather than toward processing paper evidence, which requires in-office contact with the evidence and proximity to other individuals.
Because this policy offers important benefits beyond reducing the risk of COVID-19, we plan to retain this requirement even after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Specifically, the ability to process evidence and develop cases electronically allows us to balance our workloads across the country by assigning the work to a broader network of available staff and adjudicators. This practice has proven successful with reducing the hearings backlog since 2016, and will help us carry out our mission now, while our offices currently maximize telework, and in the future. For more information about our ongoing plan to manage our hearings workload, please visit our website (
The new requirement is subject to the conditions discussed below.
In accordance with 20 CFR 404.1713, 416.1513, as of November 4, 2020, representatives are required to use ERE, ARS, or iAppeals, as available, to submit evidence electronically in claims for disability insurance benefits under title II of the Act and claims for SSI payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act, for which: (1) The representative requests direct fee payment, (2) the claim or case has an electronic folder, and (3) the claim is pending at OHO or the Appeals Council.
Although we do not require it, we also strongly encourage representatives who are not requesting direct payment to submit evidence electronically through ERE, ARS, or iAppeals.
The requirement that a representative submit evidence electronically, as described above, constitutes an affirmative duty under 20 CFR 404.1740(b)(4), 416.1530(b)(4). We may investigate to determine if representatives have violated this duty or are attempting to circumvent our rules, including by having claimants whom they represent submit their own evidence via non-electronic means when this requirement is applicable to the representative. We may sanction a representative who does not follow our rules. 20 CFR 404.1740-1795 and 416.1540-1595. However, we will not reject or delay a claimant's hearing or process a claim differently if a representative fails to comply with this electronic upload requirement.
We acknowledge there may be a few situations where case characteristics, our systems, or other limitations preclude a representative's ability to submit evidence electronically. In these situations, we will consider the representative's individual
Additional information is available on our Representing Social Security Claimants website at
We presently operate three systems through which users are able to upload evidence electronically: (ERE), (ARS), and iAppeals. A description of each system follows in the chart below.
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Andrew Saul, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of publication in the
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made that a number of foreign persons have engaged in activities that warrant the imposition of measures pursuant to Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Act provides for penalties on foreign entities and individuals for the transfer to or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from Syria since January 1, 2005; or the transfer to or acquisition from North Korea since January 1, 2006, of goods, services, or technology controlled under multilateral control lists (Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise having the potential to make a material contribution to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or cruise or ballistic missile systems. The latter category includes (a) items of the same kind as those on multilateral lists but falling below the control list parameters when it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems, (b) items on U.S. national control lists for WMD/missile reasons that are not on multilateral lists, and (c) other items with the potential of making such a material contribution when added through case-by-case decisions.
September 23, 2020.
On general issues: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone: (202) 647-4930. For U.S. government procurement ban issues: Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of State, Telephone: (703) 875-4079.
On September 23, 2020, the U.S. Government applied the measures authorized in Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109-353) against the following foreign persons identified in the report submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act:
Gaobeidian Kaituo Precise Instrument Co. Ltd (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Luo Dingwen (Chinese individual);
Raybeam Optronics Co. Ltd. (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Tungsten Online (Xiamen) Manu and Sales Corp. (China) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (Iran) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) (Iraq) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Rosoboronexport (Russia) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Al Jaysh al Sha'bi (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Fifth Border Guard Regiment (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Lebanese Hizballah (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof; and
Syrian Army (Syria) and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the following measures are imposed on these persons:
1. No department or agency of the U.S. government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from these foreign persons, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
2. No department or agency of the U.S. government may provide any assistance to these foreign persons, and these persons shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the United States government, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
3. No U.S. government sales to these foreign persons of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to these persons of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated; and
4. No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to these foreign persons of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the U.S. government and will remain in place for two years from the effective date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The U.S. Trade Representative is making technical corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as set forth in the Annex to this notice.
The changes made by this notice are applicable as of July 1, 2020.
Janet Heinzen, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Office of Textiles, at
Proclamation 10053 of June 29, 2020 (85 FR 39821) implemented the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA or Agreement). Annexes I and II to Proclamation 10053 made modifications to the HTSUS in order to implement the tariff treatment provided under the Agreement, including the tariff treatment provided for certain textile and apparel goods (see Annex II to Proclamation 10053 at Section E, paragraph (5)). The Annex to this notice modifies the provisions of the HTSUS that were added by Proclamation 10053 to correct inadvertent errors to provide the intended tariff treatment.
Proclamation 6969 of January 27, 1997 (62 FR 4415) authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to exercise the authority provided to the President under section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2483) to embody rectifications, technical or conforming changes, or similar modifications in the HTSUS. Pursuant to this delegated authority, the U.S. Trade Representative is modifying the HTSUS to make the technical changes set out in the Annex to this notice.
Effective with respect to goods of USMCA countries entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01am Eastern Daylight Time on July 1, 2020, subchapter XXIII of chapter 98 of the HTS is modified:
(1) by inserting “9823.52.04” in the “Heading/Subheading” column for the article description, “Cotton or man-made fiber fabrics and made up goods as provided in note 11(a)(ii)”, and by redesignating subheading 9823.52.04, with the article description “Goods provided for in note 11(a)(ii)(A)”, as 9823.52.05;
(2) by redesignating subheading 9823.52.05 as 9823.52.06;
(3) by redesignating subheading 9823.52.06 as 9823.52.07;
(4) by redesignating subheading 9823.52.07 as 9823.52.08; and
(5) by redesignating subheading 9823.52.03, with the article description “Cotton or man-made fiber fabrics and made-up goods as provided for in note 11(b)(ii)”, as 9823.53.03.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $34 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated an exclusion process in July 2018 and has granted 10 sets of exclusions under the $34 billion action. He published the eighth set of exclusions in October 2019 and additional exclusions in December 2019 and February 2020. These exclusions will expire on October 2, 2020. On August 3, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative established a process for the public to comment on whether to extend particular exclusions for up to 12 months. This notice announces the U.S. Trade Representative's determination to extend certain exclusions through December 31, 2020.
The product exclusion extensions announced in this notice apply as of October 2, 2020, and extend through December 31, 2020. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will issue instructions on entry guidance and implementation.
For general questions about this notice, contact Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Benjamin Allen, or Director of Industrial Goods Justin Hoffmann at (202) 395-5725. For specific questions on customs classification or implementation of the product exclusions identified in the Annex to this notice, contact
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see prior notices including: 82 FR 40213 (August 24, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 32181 (July 11, 2018), 83 FR 67463 (December 28, 2018), 84 FR 11152 (March 25, 2019), 84 FR 16310 (April 18, 2019), 84 FR 21389 (May 14, 2019), 84 FR 25895 (June 4, 2019), 84 FR 32821 (July 9, 2019), 84 FR 43304 (August 20, 2019), 84 FR 46212 (September 3, 2019), 84 FR 49564 (September 20, 2019), 84 FR 52567 (October 2, 2019), 84 FR 58427 (October 31, 2019), 84 FR 70616 (December 23, 2019), 84 FR 72102 (December 30, 2019), 85 FR 6687 (February 5, 2020), 85 FR 12373 (March 2, 2020), 85 FR 16181 (March 20, 2020), 85 FR 24081 (April 30, 2020), 85 FR 33775 (June 2, 2020), 85 FR 34274 (June 3, 2020), 85 FR 41267 (July 9, 2020), 85 FR 46777 (August 3, 2020), and 85 FR 59587 (September 22, 2020).
Effective July 6, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional 25 percent duties on goods of China classified in 818 eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), with an approximate annual trade value of $34 billion.
In October and December 2019 and February 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative granted exclusion requests.
Under the August 3 notice, commenters were asked to address whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries; any changes in the global supply chain since July 2018 with respect to the particular product, or any other relevant industry developments; and efforts, if any, importers or U.S. purchasers have undertaken since July 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
In addition, commenters who were importers and/or purchasers of the products covered by an exclusion were asked to provide information regarding their efforts since July 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries; the value and quantity of the Chinese-origin product covered by the specific exclusion request purchased in 2018 and 2019, and whether these purchases are from a related company; whether Chinese suppliers have lowered their prices for products covered by the exclusion following the imposition of duties; the value and quantity of the product covered by the exclusion purchased from domestic and third country sources in 2018 and 2019; the commenter's gross revenue for 2018 and 2019; whether the Chinese-origin product of concern is sold as a final product or as an input; whether the imposition of duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests; and any additional information in support or in opposition of the extending the exclusion.
The August 3 notice required the submission of comments no later than August 30, 2020.
Based on an evaluation of the factors set out in the July 11 and August 3 notices, which are summarized above, pursuant to sections 301(b), 301(c), and 307(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and in accordance with the advice of the interagency Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to extend certain product exclusions covered by the October 2, December 17, and February 11 notices, as set out in the Annexes to this notice.
The August 3 notice said the U.S. Trade Representative would consider extensions of up to 12 months. In light of the cumulative effect of current and possible future exclusions or extensions of exclusions on the effectiveness of the action taken in this investigation, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to extend the exclusions in the Annexes to this notice for less than 12 months—through December 31, 2020. To date, the U.S. Trade Representative has granted more than 6,800 exclusion requests, has extended some of these exclusions, and may consider further extensions of exclusions. The U.S. Trade Representative will take account of the cumulative effect of exclusions in considering the possible further extension of the exclusions covered by this notice, as well as possible extensions of exclusions of other products covered by the action in this investigation. The U.S. Trade Representative's determination also takes into account advice from advisory committees and any public comments concerning extension of the pertinent exclusion.
In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusions are available for any product that meets the description in the Annexes, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. Further, the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the ten-digit HTSUS headings and product descriptions in the Annexes to this notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Effective August 23, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $16 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The U.S. Trade Representative initiated an exclusion process in September 2018 and granted three sets of exclusions under the $16 billion action. He published the third set of exclusions in September 2019 and added additional exclusions in February and July 2020. These exclusions will expire on October 2, 2020. On June 25, 2020, the U.S. Trade Representative established a process for the public to comment on whether to extend particular exclusions for up to 12 months. This notice announces the U.S. Trade Representative's determination to extend certain exclusions through December 31, 2020.
The product exclusion extensions announced in this notice apply as of October 2, 2020, and extend through December 31, 2020. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will issue instructions on entry guidance and implementation.
For general questions about this notice, contact Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Benjamin Allen, or Director of Industrial Goods Justin Hoffmann at (202) 395-5725. For specific questions on customs classification or implementation of the product exclusions identified in the Annex to this notice, contact
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see prior notices including: 82 FR 40213 (August 24, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (June 20, 2018), 83 FR 33608 (July 17, 2018), 83 FR 38760 (August 7, 2018), 83 FR 40823 (August 16, 2018), 83 FR 47236 (September 18, 2018), 83 FR 47974 (September 21, 2018), 83 FR 65198 (December 19, 2018), 84 FR 7966 (March 5, 2019), 84 FR 20459 (May 9, 2019), 84 FR 29576 (June 24, 2019), 84 FR 37381 (July 31, 2019), 84 FR 49600 (September 20, 2019), 84 FR 52553 (October 2, 2019), 84 FR 69011 (December 17, 2019), 85 FR 10808 (February 25, 2020), 85 FR 24076
Effective August 23, 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional 25 percent duties on goods of China classified in 279 eight-digit subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), with an approximate annual trade value of $16 billion.
In September 2019, the U.S. Trade Representative granted a set of exclusion requests and added additional exclusions in February and July 2020.
Under the June 25 notice, commenters were asked to address whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries; any changes in the global supply chain since August 2018 with respect to the particular product, or any other relevant industry developments; and efforts, if any, importers or U.S. purchasers have undertaken since August 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries.
In addition, commenters who were importers and/or purchasers of the products covered by an exclusion were asked to provide information regarding their efforts since August 2018 to source the product from the United States or third countries; the value and quantity of the Chinese-origin product covered by the specific exclusion request purchased in 2018 and 2019, and whether these purchases are from a related company; whether Chinese suppliers have lowered their prices for products covered by the exclusion following the imposition of duties; the value and quantity of the product covered by the exclusion purchased from domestic and third country sources in 2018 and 2019; the commenter's gross revenue for 2018 and 2019; whether the Chinese-origin product of concern is sold as a final product or as an input; whether the imposition of duties on the products covered by the exclusion will result in severe economic harm to the commenter or other U.S. interests; and any additional information in support or in opposition of the extending the exclusion.
The June 25 notice required the submission of comments no later than July 30, 2020.
Based on an evaluation of the factors set out in the September 18 and June 25 notices, which are summarized above, pursuant to sections 301(b), 301(c), and 307(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and in accordance with the advice of the interagency Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to extend certain product exclusions covered by the September 20, February 25, and July 16 notices, as set out in the Annexes to this notice.
The June 25 notice said the U.S. Trade Representative would consider extensions of up to 12 months. In light of the cumulative effect of current and possible future exclusions or extensions of exclusions on the effectiveness of the action taken in this investigation, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to extend the exclusions in the Annex to this notice for less than 12 months—through December 31, 2020. To date, the U.S. Trade Representative has granted more than 6,800 exclusion requests, has extended some of these exclusions, and may consider further extensions of exclusions. The U.S. Trade Representative will take account of the cumulative effect of exclusions in considering the possible further extension of the exclusions covered by this notice, as well as possible extensions of exclusions of other products covered by the action in this investigation. The U.S. Trade Representative's determination also takes into account advice from advisory committees and any public comments concerning extension of the pertinent exclusion.
In accordance with the September 18 notice, the exclusions are available for any product that meets the description in the Annexes, regardless of whether the importer filed an exclusion request. Further, the scope of each exclusion is governed by the scope of the ten-digit HTSUS headings and product descriptions in the Annexes to this notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new (periodic) information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by November 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2020-0021 by any of the following methods:
For access to Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
John Berg, (202) 740-4602, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Section 141 also authorizes the Secretary to require States to file such information as is necessary to verify that their certifications are accurate. To determine whether States are adequately enforcing their size and weight limits, FHWA requires that each State submit to the FHWA an updated plan for enforcing their size and weight limits. The plan goes into effect at the beginning of each Federal fiscal year. At the end of the fiscal year, States must submit their certifications and sufficient information to verify that their enforcement goals established in the plan have been met.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 42 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirements in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions are applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637, Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8203, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12294, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-16564, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22194, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-23773, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0266, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0206, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0291, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0201, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0379, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0004, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0006, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0297, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0029, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0031, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0033, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0206, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0207, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0208, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0209, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0017, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0011, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0017, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0018 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0297; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2016-0207; FMCSA-2016-0208; FMCSA-2016-0209; FMCSA-2016-0210; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2018-0010; FMCSA-2018-0011; FMCSA-2018-0017; FMCSA-2018-0018), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
The 42 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 42 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision standard (see 63 FR 196; 63 FR 30285; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 65 FR 66293; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR 67234; 68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 62741; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 6828; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 19604; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 50970; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 62147; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48270; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 74565; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 50799; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 64396; 75 FR 66423; 75 FR 70078; 76 FR 66123; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 78 FR 77782; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46300; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 63211; 79 FR 64001; 79 FR 68199; 80 FR 2471; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 42054; 81 FR 52514; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR 66722; 81 FR 68098; 81 FR 70248; 81 FR 70251; 81 FR 70253; 81 FR 71173; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 72664; 81 FR 74494; 81 FR 80161; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 90046; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 94013; 81 FR 96178; 81 FR 96191; 81 FR 96196; 82 FR 20962; 82 FR 37499; 83 FR 18633; 83 FR 24585; 83 FR 28325; 83 FR 28332; 83 FR 28342; 83 FR 34661; 83 FR 34677; 83 FR 40638; 83 FR 45750; 83 FR 53724; 83 FR 53727; 83 FR 56137; 83 FR 56902; 84 FR 2328). They have submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at § 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past 2 years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of November and are discussed below. As of November 9, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 30 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (63 FR 196; 63 FR 30285; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 33406; 65 FR 57234; 65 FR 66293; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR 67234; 68 FR 74699; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 62741; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 71 FR 6828; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 19604; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 50970; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 62147; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR 48270; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 74565; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 50799; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 64396; 75 FR 66423; 75 FR 70078; 76 FR 66123; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 40946; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 78 FR 77782; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10619; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 2200379 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46300; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 64001; 79 FR 68199; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 42054; 81 FR 52514; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR 66722; 81 FR 68098; 81 FR 71173; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 74494; 81 FR 80161; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 96196; 82 FR 20962; 82 FR 37499; 83 FR 18633; 83 FR
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2017-0017; FMCSA-2018-0010; FMCSA-2018-0011; FMCSA-2018-0017. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 9, 2020, and will expire on November 9, 2022.
As of November 11, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (81 FR 70248; 81 FR 70251; 81 FR 70253; 81 FR 90046; 81 FR 96178; 81 FR 96191; 83 FR 53724):
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2016-0207; FMCSA-2016-0208; FMCSA-2016-0209. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 11, 2020, and will expire on November 11, 2022.
As of November 22, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 63211; 80 FR 2471; 81 FR 72664; 81 FR 94013; 83 FR 53724):
Peter J. Faber (NE); James F. McLaughlin (MN); and Michael J. Monroe (IA)
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0297; FMCSA-2016-0210. Their exemptions are applicable as of November 22, 2020, and will expire on November 22, 2022.
As of November 24, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (83 FR 53727; 84 FR 2328):
Marcel Spinu (WA)
The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0018. The exemption is applicable as of November 24, 2020, and will expire on November 24, 2022.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by § 390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under § 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 42 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision requirement in § 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0212, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0215, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0053, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0054 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2014-0215, FMCSA-2018-0053, or FMCSA-2018-0054), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The six individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the six applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The six drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October and are discussed below.
As of October 15, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0212, FMCSA-2014-0215, and FMCSA-2018-0053. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 15, 2020, and will expire on October 15, 2022.
As of October 17, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0054. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 17, 2020, and will expire on October 17, 2022.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the 2-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as defined by § 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the six exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 4, 2020.
Submit written comments on the ICR activities to Ms. Qiana Swayne, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on a request for special permit received from the Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (CGT). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant or deny the special permit request.
Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by November 4, 2020.
Comments should reference the docket number for this specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
PHMSA received a special permit request from CGT, a subsidiary of TC Energy, seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.505(c): Strength test requirements for steel pipeline to operate at a hoop stress of 30 percent or more of SMYS, 49 CFR 192.611: Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum allowable operating pressure, and 49 CFR 192.619: Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines. The special permit request is for special permit segments that have either a Class 1 to 3 location change, a pressure test duration below eight (8) hours, or a pressure test times maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) safety factor that is below 1.25.
This special permit is being requested in lieu of pipe replacement, pressure reduction, or a new pressure test for 61 special permit segments totaling 114,124 feet (approximately 21.614 miles) in total length of pipeline. The pipeline special permit segments consist of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed special permit will allow operation of the original Class 1 pipe in Class 3 locations. The CGT pipelines were constructed in the following time periods and operate at the MAOPs listed below:
• 24-inch diameter EL 200 Pipeline was constructed in 1954 and has a MAOP of 973 pound per square inch gauge (psig);
• 30-inch diameter ML 400 Pipeline was constructed in 1971 and has a MAOP of 1,007 psig;
• 30-inch diameter ML 100 Pipeline was constructed between 1953 to 1954 and has a MAOP of 935 psig;
• 30-inch diameter ML 200 Pipeline was constructed between 1958 to 1965 and has a MAOP of 1,007 psig; and
• 36-inch diameter ML 300 Pipeline was constructed between 1968 to 1971 and has a MAOP of 1,007 psig.
The special permit request, proposed special permit with conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the CGT pipelines are available for review and public comments in Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0201. We invite interested persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit request.
Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Notice and request for comments.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts.” The OCC is also giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by November 4, 2020.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection
• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
• A national bank or Federal savings association that has more than $700 billion in total assets as reported on the national bank's or Federal savings association's most recent Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report);
• A national bank or Federal savings association that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company that has been designated pursuant to § 252.82 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.82);
• A national bank or Federal savings association that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to § 252.87 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.87); or
• A Federal branch or agency, as defined in subpart B of this chapter (governing Federal branches and agencies), of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to § 252.87 of this title (Federal Reserve Board Regulation YY) (12 CFR 252.87).
The requirements are intended to enhance the resilience and the safety and soundness of Federally chartered and licensed financial institutions by addressing concerns relating to the exercise of default rights of certain financial contracts that could interfere with the orderly resolution of certain systemically important financial firms.
Covered banks may comply either by amending the contractual provisions of their QFCs consistent with the requirements of §§ 47.4 and 47.5 within a specified period of time or by adhering to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol or U.S. Protocol (ISDA Protocols). Alternatively, 12 CFR 47.6(b)(1) provides that a covered bank may request that the OCC approve as compliant with the requirements of §§ 47.4 and 47.5 provisions of one or more forms of covered QFCs, or amendments to one or more forms of covered QFCs, with enhanced creditor protection conditions.
In order for the OCC to evaluate a covered bank's request, 12 CFR 47.6(b)(3) requires that the request include (1) an analysis of the proposal that addresses a range of factors laid out in § 47.6(d) that are intended to facilitate the OCC's consideration of whether the proposal would be consistent with the restrictions and the main objectives of the rule; (2) a written legal opinion verifying that the covered bank's proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable laws of the relevant jurisdictions, including in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and (3) any additional information relevant to the OCC's approval that the OCC requests. Based on the information collected, the OCC will then determine whether the covered bank's proposed alternative creditor protection conditions comply with the requirements of the rule and achieve its policy goals.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's burden estimates, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the renewal of an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning renewal of its information collection titled, “Examination Survey.”
Comments must be submitted by December 4, 2020.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OCC is proposing to extend the approval for the following information collection:
• Effectiveness of OCC communications with the bank;
• Reasonableness of OCC requests for data and information;
• Quality of OCC decision making during the exam process;
• Professionalism of OCC examining staff; and
• Responsiveness of OCC examiners.
The OCC developed the survey in 1994, at the suggestion of banking industry members who expressed a desire to provide examination-related feedback to the OCC. The Comptroller of the Currency and OCC supervisory staff considered that expressed desire and concurred. The information collection continues to be an important tool for the OCC to measure OCC examination performance, design more efficient and effective examinations, and target examiner training.
This information collection continues to formalize and promote a long-standing OCC program. The OCC always has given the institutions it supervises the opportunity to provide input regarding the examination process.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “OCC Guidelines Establishing Heightened Standards for Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches.”
Comments must be submitted on or before December 4, 2020.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of title 44 requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The standards contained in the guidelines are enforceable under section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA),
The guidelines formalize the OCC's heightened expectations program. The guidelines also further the goal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to strengthen the financial system by focusing management and boards of directors on improving and strengthening risk management practices and governance, thereby minimizing the probability and impact of future financial crises.
The standards for the design and implementation of the risk governance framework, which contain collections of information, are as follows:
Covered banks should establish and adhere to a formal, written risk governance framework designed by independent risk management. The framework should include delegations of authority from the board of directors to management committees and executive officers and risk limits for material activities. The framework should be approved by the board of directors or the board's risk committee, and it should be reviewed and updated, at least annually, by independent risk management.
Front line units should take responsibility and be held accountable by the chief executive officer (CEO) and the board of directors for appropriately assessing and effectively managing all of the risks associated with their activities. In fulfilling this responsibility, each front line unit should, either alone or in conjunction with another organizational unit that has the purpose of assisting a front line unit: (i) Assess, on an ongoing basis, the material risks associated with its activities and use such risk assessments as the basis for fulfilling its responsibilities and for determining if actions need to be taken to strengthen risk management or reduce risk given changes in the unit's risk profile or other conditions; and (ii) establish and adhere to a set of written policies that include front line unit risk limits. Such policies should ensure risks associated with the front line unit's activities are effectively identified, measured, monitored, and controlled, consistent with the covered bank's risk appetite statement, concentration risk limits, and all policies established within the risk governance framework. Front line units should also establish and adhere to procedures and processes, as necessary to maintain compliance with the policies described in (ii); and adhere to all applicable policies, procedures, and processes established by independent risk management. Front line units should also develop, attract, and retain talent and maintain staffing levels required to carry out the unit's role and responsibilities effectively; establish and adhere to talent management processes; and establish and adhere to compensation and performance management programs.
Independent risk management should oversee the covered bank's risk-taking activities and assess risks and issues independent of the front line units. In fulfilling these responsibilities, independent risk management should: (i) Take responsibility and be held responsible by the CEO and the board of directors for designing a comprehensive written risk governance framework that meets the guidelines and is commensurate with the size, complexity, and risk profile of the covered bank; (ii) identify and assess, on an ongoing basis, the covered bank's material aggregate risks and use such risk assessments as the basis for fulfilling its responsibilities and for determining if actions need to be taken to strengthen risk management or reduce risk given changes in the covered bank's risk profile or other conditions; (iii) establish and adhere to enterprise policies that include concentration risk limits that state how aggregate risks within the covered bank are effectively identified, measured, monitored, and controlled, consistent with the covered bank's risk appetite statement and all policies and processes established within the risk governance framework; (iv) establish and adhere to procedures and processes, as necessary, to ensure compliance with policies in (iii); (v) identify and communicate to the CEO and the board of directors or the board's risk committee material risks and significant instances where the independent risk management's assessment of risk differs from that of a front line unit and significant instances where a front line unit is not adhering to the risk governance framework; (vi) identify and communicate to the board of directors or the board's risk committee material risks and significant instances where independent risk management's assessment of risk differs from that of the CEO and significant instances where the CEO is not adhering to, or holding front line units accountable for adhering to, the risk governance framework; and (vii) develop, attract, and retain talent and maintain the staffing levels required to carry out the unit's role and responsibilities effectively while establishing and adhering to talent management processes and compensation and performance management programs.
Internal audit should ensure that the covered bank's risk governance framework complies with the guidelines and is appropriate for the size, complexity, and risk profile of the covered bank. It should maintain a complete and current inventory of all of the covered bank's material processes, product lines, services, and functions and assess the risks, including emerging risks, associated with each, which collectively provide a basis for the audit plan. It should establish and adhere to an audit plan that is periodically reviewed and updated, takes into account the covered bank's risk profile, emerging risks, and issues and establishes the frequency with which activities should be audited. The audit plan should require internal audit to evaluate the adequacy of and compliance with policies, procedures, and processes established by front line units and independent risk management under the risk governance framework. Significant changes to the audit plan should be communicated to the board's audit committee. Internal audit should report, in writing, conclusions, material issues, and recommendations from audit work carried out under the audit plan to the board's audit committee. Reports should identify the root cause of any material issues and include: (i) A determination of whether the root cause creates an issue that has an impact on one or more organizational units within the covered bank; and (ii) a determination of the effectiveness of front line units and independent risk management in identifying and resolving issues in a timely manner. Internal audit should establish and adhere to processes for independently assessing the design and ongoing effectiveness of the risk governance framework on at least an annual basis.
The CEO, with input from front line units, independent risk management, and internal audit, should be responsible for the development of a written strategic plan that covers, at a minimum, a three-year period. The board of directors should evaluate and approve the plan and monitor management's efforts to implement the strategic plan at least annually. The plan should: (i) Include a comprehensive assessment of risks that currently impact the covered bank or that could have an impact on the covered bank during the period covered by the strategic plan; (ii) articulate an overall mission statement and strategic objectives for the covered bank with an explanation of how the covered bank will update the risk governance framework to account for changes to its risk profile projected under the strategic plan; and (iii) be reviewed, updated, and approved due to changes in the covered bank's risk profile or operating environment that were not contemplated when the plan was developed.
A covered bank should have a comprehensive written statement that articulates its risk appetite that serves as the basis for the risk governance framework. The statement should contain both qualitative components that describe a safe and sound risk culture and how the covered bank will assess and accept risks and quantitative limits that include sound stress testing processes and address earnings, capital, and liquidity.
A covered bank should establish and adhere to processes that require front line units and independent risk management to: (i) Identify breaches of the risk appetite statement, concentration risk limits, and front line unit risk limits; (ii) distinguish breaches based on the severity of their impact; (iii) establish protocols for when and how to inform the board of directors, front line unit management, independent risk management, internal audit, and the OCC regarding a breach; (iv) provide a written description of the breach resolution; and (v) establish accountability for reporting and resolving breaches that include consequences for risk limit breaches that take into account the magnitude, frequency, and recurrence of breaches .
The risk governance framework should include policies and supporting processes appropriate for the covered bank's size, complexity, and risk profile for effectively identifying, measuring, monitoring, and controlling the covered bank's concentrations of risk.
The risk governance framework should include a set of policies, supported by appropriate procedures and processes, designed to provide risk data aggregation and reporting capabilities appropriate for the covered bank's size, complexity, and risk profile and to support supervisory reporting requirements. Collectively, these policies, procedures, and processes should provide for: (i) The design, implementation, and maintenance of a data architecture and information technology infrastructure that support the covered bank's risk aggregation and reporting needs during normal times and during times of stress; (ii) the capturing and aggregating of risk data and reporting of material risks, concentrations, and emerging risks in a timely manner to the board of directors and the OCC; and (iii) the distribution of risk reports to all relevant parties at a frequency that meets their needs for decision-making purposes.
A covered bank should establish and adhere to processes for talent development, recruitment, and succession planning. The board of directors or appropriate committee should review and approve a written talent management program. A covered bank should also establish and adhere to compensation and performance management programs that comply with any applicable statute or regulation.
The board of directors of a covered bank should establish and adhere to a formal, ongoing training program for all directors. The board of directors should also conduct an annual self-assessment.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the information collection;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC), Department of the Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Supervisory Guidance: Supervisory Review Process of Capital Adequacy (Pillar 2) Related to the Implementation of the Basel II Advanced Capital Framework.” The OCC also is giving notice that it has sent the collection to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by November 4, 2020.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC asks that OMB extend its approval of the following collection.
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's burden estimates, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 30, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the identifying information of one individual who was added to OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 30, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following individual are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ-CALLEJA, Luis Alberto (Latin: RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ-CALLEJA, Luis Alberto) (a.k.a. RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ-CALLEJAS, Luis Alberto (Latin: RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ-CALLEJAS, Luis Alberto)), Calle 49 A Nro. 3626, Playa, Havana, Cuba; DOB 19 Jan 1960; POB Cuba; nationality Cuba; Gender Male; Passport A009956 (Cuba) issued 23 Jan 2017 expires 23 Jan 2029 (individual) [CUBA].
Identified pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (CACR), as meeting the definition of a Cuban national, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to CACR.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more individuals that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). OFAC has determined that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied to place the individuals on the SDN List. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On September 18, 2020, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following individuals are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BENAVIDES RONDON, Williams Jose; DOB 04 Apr 1981; POB Guanipa, Anzoategui, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V-15631775 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela,” 80 FR 12747, 3 CFR, 2015 Comp., p. 276 (E.O. 13692), as amended by Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela,” 84 FR 509 (E.O. 13857), for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
2. BUCARAN PARAGUAN, Chaim Jose, Calle Ayacucho Cruce con Calle Apure, Casa Nro. 04, Sector Pueblo Nuevo, Anaco, Anzoategui 6003, Venezuela; DOB 16 Aug 1972; POB Anaco, Anzoategui, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V-10998672 (Venezuela); Passport 024751597 (Venezuela) issued 03 Jul 2009 expires 02 Jul 2014 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
3. GUTIERREZ PARRA, Jose Bernabe, Av Las Acacias entre Libertador y Andres Bello, Edf Florida Plaza Piso 2 Apt 2, Caracas, Gran Caracas 1010, Venezuela; DOB 21 Dec 1952; POB Caicara del Orinoco, Bolívar, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V-1565144 (Venezuela); Passport 068637114 (Venezuela) issued 04 Mar 2013 expires 03 Mar 2018 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A)(1) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, or having participated in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions.
4. LUCES OSORIO, Guillermo Antonio, Urbanizacion Base Aragua, 2da Avenida, Edificio Piedra Pintada, Torre B, PH 2B, Maracay, Aragua 2101, Venezuela; DOB 23 Oct 1970; POB Aragua, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V-9656271 (Venezuela); Passport 095146311 (Venezuela) issued 13 Jun 2014 expires 12 Jun 2019 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
5. PONENTE PARRA, Miguel Antonio Jose, Urbanizacion Los Sauces II, Calle 6, Casa N D-19, San Felipe, Yaracuy 3201, Venezuela; DOB 05 Feb 1975; POB San Felipe, Yaracuy, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. V-12277477 (Venezuela); Passport 066562397 (Venezuela) issued 17 Jan 2013 expires 16 Jan 2018 (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13692, as amended by E.O. 13857, for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 4, 2020.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 615-9241.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
(b) By January 1, 2021, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall inform the President of the state of the threat posed by our Nation's reliance on critical minerals, in processed or unprocessed form, from foreign adversaries and recommend any additional actions necessary to address that threat.
(c) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the heads of all relevant agencies shall each submit a report to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, that identifies all legal authorities and appropriations that the agency can use to meet the goals identified in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the heads of all relevant agencies shall each submit a report as provided in subsection (b) of this section that details the agency's strategy for using the legal authorities and appropriations identified pursuant to that subsection to meet the goals identified in subsection (a) of this section. The report shall explain how the agency's activities will be organized and how it proposes to coordinate relevant activities with other agencies.
(d) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall submit a report to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy, that describes the current state of research and development activities undertaken by the Federal Government that relate to the mapping, extraction, processing, and use of minerals and that identifies future research and development needs and funding opportunities to strengthen domestic supply chains for minerals.
(e) Within 45 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy, that details existing and planned efforts and policy options to:
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Energy shall review the Department of Energy's regulations (including any preambles thereto) interpreting Title XVII and the ATVM statute, including the regulations published at 81
(a) the term “critical minerals” means the minerals and materials identified by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 2(b) of Executive Order 13817, as amended by this order; and
(b) the term “supply chain,” when used with reference to minerals, includes the exploration, mining, concentration, separation, alloying, recycling, and reprocessing of minerals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is proposing to establish a test procedure and an accompanying labeling requirement for dedicated-purpose pool pump (“DPPP”) motors. Specifically, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference an industry standard pertaining to DPPP definitions and marking requirements; require the use of an industry testing standard for testing the energy efficiency of DPPP motors; and to establish a labeling requirement that would specify information to be included on the permanent nameplate, catalogs, and marketing materials of DPPP motors. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposal no later than November 19, 2020. DOE will hold a webinar on this proposed test procedure on October 20, 2020 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V.A of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy following the instructions at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
CSA C747-09 (R2014), “Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors”.
Copies of CSA C747-09, can be obtained from the Canadian Standards Association (“CSA”), Sales Department, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5N6, Canada, 1-800-463-6727, or
UL 1004-10:2019, “Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors”.
Copies of UL 1004-2019, can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois, 60062 or
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N.
Electric motors are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards, test procedures, and labeling requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(A)). Electric motors include dedicated-purpose pool pump motors (“DPPP motors” or “pool pump motors”), the subject of this rulemaking.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish a test procedure based on an industry testing standard for testing the energy efficiency of certain DPPP motors; and to establish a labeling requirement that would specify information to be included on the permanent nameplate, catalogs, and marketing materials of these DPPP motors.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA outlines the criteria and procedures DOE must follow in prescribing test procedures for covered equipment. The test procedure shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Before issuing a final test procedure, the Secretary shall publish the proposed test procedure in the
When the Secretary has issued a test procedure under section 6314 of EPCA for a specific class of industrial equipment, the Secretary shall also prescribe a labeling rule for that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a)). The labeling rule must disclose the energy efficiency of the equipment as determined in accordance with the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b)). The rule prescribing a label may also include such requirements as the Secretary determines are likely to assist purchasers in making purchasing decisions including: (1) Directions for the display of the label; (2) a requirement to display on the label information related to energy efficiency or energy consumption, which may include instructions for maintenance and repair of the covered equipment, as necessary, to provide adequate information to purchasers; and (3) requirements that printed matter displayed or distributed with the equipment at the point of sale also include the information required to be placed on the label. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b) and 42 U.S.C. 6315(c))
EPCA establishes specific requirements for the labeling of classes of equipment, including electric motors, for which test procedures have been established. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a), (b) and (d)) Further, the labeling rule shall provide that the labeling of any electric motor manufactured after the 12-month period beginning on the date the Secretary prescribes such labeling rules, shall: (1) Indicate the energy efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to such motor; (2) prominently display the energy efficiency of the motor in equipment catalogs and other material used to market the equipment; and (3) include such other markings as the Secretary determines necessary solely to facilitate enforcement of the standards established for electric motors under section 6313 of this title. (42 U.S.C. 6315(d))
Prior to prescribing any labeling rule, EPCA sets out certain criteria that must be met. Specifically, to establish a labeling requirement, DOE must determine that: (1) Labeling in accordance with section 6315 is technologically and economically feasible with respect to any particular equipment class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from such labeling; and (3) labeling in accordance with section 6315 is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h))
Before prescribing any labeling rule for covered equipment, the Secretary must publish the proposed labeling rule in the
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) pursuant to its authority under EPCA.
DPPP motors are electric motors, which are defined as machines that convert electrical power into rotational mechanical power. 10 CFR 431.12. DOE has established test procedures, labeling requirements, and energy conservation standards for certain electric motors (10 CFR part 431 subpart B), but those requirements do not apply to DPPP motors subject to the proposed labeling requirements. Currently, DPPP motors that would be subject to the proposed labeling requirements are not subject to any Federal energy conservation standards, test procedures, or labeling requirements because they do not fall within any of the specific classes of electric motors that are currently regulated by DOE.
As a general matter, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6297, as applied to certain industrial equipment through 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), provides that Federal preemption applies to testing and labeling requirements of equipment covered under EPCA.
Electric motors are covered equipment under EPCA to which preemption applies by virtue of Congress having included such motors in the statute.
In DOE's view, this historical backdrop points to a statutory framework in which any energy conservation standards, labeling requirements, or test procedures for electric motors, as broadly defined in DOE's current regulations, continue to be subject to Federal preemption. This situation, and for the policy reasons discussed elsewhere in this document, merit action by DOE to ensure the uniformity of the various energy conservation-related requirements pertaining to the specific class of electric motors addressed in this proposal (
On January 18, 2017, DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps (“DPPPs”). 82 FR 5650 (the “January 2017 Direct Final Rule”). DOE confirmed the adoption of the standards and the effective date and compliance date in a notice published on May 26, 2017. 82 FR 24218. DOE also established a test procedure for DPPPs. 82 FR 36858 (August 7, 2017).
In comments submitted in response to the direct final rule, several interested parties discussed the issue of the efficiency of electric motors used in DPPPs. Comments were received from a broad range of interested parties, including manufacturers, trade associations, and energy efficiency advocacy organizations suggesting that energy conservation standards were also needed for motors used in pool pumps. Commenters wanted to ensure that consumers who purchased pool pumps compliant with the new standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), who subsequently needed to replace their motor, would do so with a motor of equal or greater efficiency. All comments received that discussed DPPP motors supported further rulemaking to address these motors. (Regal Beloit Corporation (“Regal Beloit”), No. 122 at p. 1; Hayward Industries, Inc. (“Hayward”), No. 125 at p. 1; Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. (“Pentair”), No. 132 at pp. 1-2; Zodiac Pool Systems (“Zodiac”), No. 134 at pp. 1-2; Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (“APSP”), No. 127 at p. 2; Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), No. 133 at pp. 4-5; Natural Resource Defense Council (“NRDC”), No. 121 at p. 4; California Investor Owned Utilities (“CA IOUs”), No. 130 at p. 2)
Subsequently, DOE published a notice of public meeting and held a public meeting on August 10, 2017, to consider potential scope, definitions, equipment characteristics, and metrics for pool pump motors. 82 FR 30845 (July 3, 2017). DOE also requested comment on potential requirements for pool pump motors in a request for information (“RFI”) pertaining to test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. 82 FR 35468 (July 31, 2017).
On August 14, 2018, DOE received a petition submitted by a variety of entities (collectively, the “Joint Petitioners”) asking DOE to issue a direct final rule for energy conservation standards for DPPP motors (“Joint Petition”). The entities comprising the Joint Petitioners are indicated in Table I-1. The Joint Petitioners stated that the motor on a pool pump will often fail before the pump itself needs to be replaced, and motor-only replacements are common. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 2)
• Define “dedicated-purpose pool pump motor” as any motor that is certified to UL Standard 1004-10:2019, or designed and/or marketed for use in dedicated-purpose pool pump applications;
• Cover DPPP motors with a total horsepower (“THP”) of less than or equal to 5 THP; and exempt polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive (and distributed in commerce without a drive), waterfall pump motors, rigid electric spa pump motors, storable electric spa pump motors, integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and integral sand-filter pool pump motors;
• Establish prescriptive requirements: (1) Prohibiting DPPP motors from operating with a capacitor-start induction-run or split-phase configuration at maximum operating speed, (2) requiring that DPPP motors with greater than or equal to 1.15 THP meet the definition of “variable-speed control” DPPP motors, and (3) subjecting DPPP motors with freeze protection controls to the same requirements as DPPPs with freeze protection controls;
• Require that DPPP motors include a label indicating the THP and whether the motor is a single-speed, two-speed, multi-speed, or variable-speed control; and
• Require that manufacturers report to DOE information including the settings of the controls for motors with freeze protection controls (shipped enabled vs. shipped disabled); and, for those DPPP motors distributed with freeze protection controls enabled, the default dry-bulb air temperature setting (in degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”)), default run time setting (in minutes) and default motor speed (in revolutions per minute (“rpm”)). (Id.)
The Joint Petitioners asserted that their proposal for DPPP motors would provide significant benefits to consumers, manufacturers, and the electric grid, by assuring that, when replacing the motor on a DPPP, consumers would continue to realize the energy and cost savings provided under the DPPP energy conservation standard. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 9) The Joint Petitioners sought a compliance date of July 19, 2021, to align with the standards compliance date for DPPPs. (Id.) See also 82 FR 24218 (May 26, 2017).
DOE published a notice of the Joint Petition and sought comment on whether to proceed with the proposal, as well as any data or information that could be used in DOE's determination of whether to issue a direct final rule. 83 FR 45851 (September 11, 2018).
DOE received comments in response to DOE's notice of receipt of the Joint Petition. Table I-1 lists the commenters and identifies whether each was part of the group of Joint Petitioners.
On December 12, 2018, representatives from APSP, NEMA, Nidec Motors, Regal Beloit, and Zodiac met with DOE to reiterate the need for implementation of the Joint Petition. (December 2018
In response to the Joint Petition and the alternative recommendation presented by several of the Petitioners following submission of the Joint Petition, DOE is proposing to establish a test procedure and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors with the intention of ensuring that the energy savings from the DPPP standard are maintained while posing minimal costs to manufacturers and avoiding potential overlap between DOE requirements and industry-developed standards. DOE is not, however, contemplating the adoption of separate energy conservation standards for the DPPP motors that would be tested and labeled under this proposal.
In this document, DOE is proposing to:
• Specify that the test procedure and labeling rule would apply to “subject DPPP motors” (
• Incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 and reference the definitions of that standard;
• Incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the energy efficiency test method for DPPP motors;
• Require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) if the DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004:2019, to include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”;
• Require that catalogs and marketing materials include the full load efficiency of the motor;
• Require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; and
• Require manufacturers to report to DOE the full load efficiency of the subject DPPP motor models as determined pursuant to the proposed test procedure. Additionally, if a DPPP motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, require manufacturers to report the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor model as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL certification.
DOE proposes to incorporate these new DPPP motor requirements in a new subpart Z within 10 CFR part 431. The provisions of the proposed rule are discussed in further detail in the following section.
DOE is proposing that the scope of the proposed test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors align with the scope of motors used in pool pumps that are subject to standards and for which DOE has established an energy performance requirement,
• Polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power,
• Waterfall pump motors,
• Rigid electric spa pump motors,
• Storable electric spa pump motors,
• Integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors, and
• Integral sand-filter pool pump motors.
The recommended upper limit of 5 THP was set to approximate the scope of the pool pumps subject to standards at 10 CFR 431.465(f), which has an upper bound of 2.5 hydraulic horsepower (“HHP”).
The proposed exemption for polyphase motors would apply to three-phase motors operating on three-phase power supply, which are most common in commercial applications and not used in residential applications. The proposed exemptions for polyphase motors would not exempt three-phase motors operating on a single-phase power supply (by connecting the motor to a drive that converts single-phase power to three-phase power), which are commonly used in residential applications. This exemption would ensure that DPPP motors used in pool pumps operating on three-phase power, which are not subject to energy performance requirements under 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y, would be exempt from the proposed labeling requirements. The remaining proposed five exemptions would also exempt DPPP motors used in DPPPs that are not subject to energy performance requirements under 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y.
Therefore, the scope of the proposed test procedure and labeling requirement is consistent with the scope of motors used in pool pumps that are subject to standards and for which DOE has set an energy performance requirement, with the scope of UL 1004-10:2019, and with the scope recommendations of the Joint Petitioners.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish a test procedure and labeling requirement for DPPP motors with a total horsepower of less than or equal to 5 THP, with the exception of: Polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; waterfall pump motors; rigid electric spa pump motors; storable electric spa pump motors; integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors; and integral sand-filter pool pump motors.
As noted, UL 1004-10:2019 establishes definitions and marking requirements for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings. DOE proposes to incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 (see section III.D.3 of this NOPR) and to reference the definitions published in that industry standard, as generally recommended by the Joint Petitioners. DOE notes that while UL 1004-10 was referenced in the Joint Petition, at the time, UL 1004-10 was in the process of being developed and had not been finalized. (Joint Petition, No. 14 at p. 7) DOE provides the main deviations of the definitions finalized in UL 1004-10:2019 from those recommended by the Joint Petitioners in Table III-1 of this NOPR.
DOE
As discussed in section III.E, the proposed reporting requirement would require manufacturers to notify DOE of the models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) to which the labeling requirement applies. DOE proposes to reference the term “manufacturer's model number,” which is generally applicable to commercial equipment and defined as the identifier used by a manufacturer to uniquely identify the group of identical or essentially identical commercial equipment to which a particular unit belongs. The manufacturer's model number typically appears on equipment nameplates, in equipment catalogs and in other product advertising literature. 10 CFR 431.2.
DOE requests comment on the proposed use of the term “manufacturer's model number” as defined at 10 CFR 431.2 for the purpose of reporting.
As discussed in section I.A.1, EPCA provides for the establishment of a test procedure for covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) The test procedure must be reasonably designed to produce results reflecting the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) While EPCA includes specific test procedure-related requirements for electric motors, these requirements are limited to those motors for which standards are applicable. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(5)) As energy conservation standards are not currently applicable for DPPP motors, these specific requirements do not apply.
Consistent with the statutory framework, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 (published October 1, 2009) as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of those electric motors used in DPPP applications. This industry-based test procedure, which is already prescribed by DOE as an alternative testing method for evaluating the efficiency of certain small electric motors, can be applied to the range of electric motors that are used in DPPPs—including both single- and variable-speed DPPP motors. Any anticipated costs for the proposed test procedure are discussed in section III.F.1 of this document.
CSA C747 provides guidelines for the testing of a single motor. CSA C747-09 requires the direct measurement of electrical input power to the motor and mechanical output power (in the form of torque and speed) from the motor (
DOE requests comments on its proposal to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of DPPP motors.
As specified in section 6.5 of CSA C747-09, the motor efficiency is measured at no fewer than five load points.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to use full load efficiency as the energy efficiency metric for pool pump motors.
In addition to providing a test method to measure motor efficiency, Section 7 of CSA C747-09 provides instructions on how to select the corresponding nominal efficiency value from Table 1 of CSA C747-09. Section 8 of CSA C747-09 requires that the nominal efficiency value at full load be marked on the motor. To determine the nominal efficiency, Table 1 of CSA C747-09 provides a series of standardized ranges of efficiency from 6 to 11 percent up to 98.8 to 99.0 percent. For a tested motor, the nominal efficiency value selected is the maximum efficiency value of the range that includes the measured efficiency value. As a result, the nominal efficiency value is either equal to or greater than the measured efficiency value. For example, a motor with a measured efficiency value of 84.5 percent could have a nominal efficiency value of 86.5 percent, which is the maximum efficiency value of the range that includes the measured efficiency value. To prevent having a metric that could potentially overstate the measured efficiency of the motor, DOE is not proposing to require use of nominal efficiency when labeling the efficiency of a pool pump motor as described in Section 7 and 8 of CSA
As discussed earlier, DOE is proposing to adopt a test procedure for DPPP motors and a corresponding labeling rule. Under the current statutory framework, labeling requirements for electric motors are dependent upon the Secretary's establishment of a test procedure pursuant to DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6314. (
In addition, this labeling proposal would also incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 (see section III.D.3 for further details) and require manufacturers to include the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” on the nameplate of DPPP motors, if the motor is certified to UL-1004:2019. This proposal would not affect a manufacturer's ability to sell DPPP motors that are not “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019,” as these motors can be used in other pump applications.
As a result of this proposed rule, (1) the nameplates of all subject DPPP motors would include the energy efficiency of the motor as determined by the proposed test procedure, and (2) the nameplates of all subject DPPP motors certified to UL 1004-10:20119 would additionally include the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019,” in addition to the total horsepower and speed configuration information already required by UL 1004-10:2019.
Section 6315(c) of EPCA authorizes the Secretary to include labeling requirements if they are likely to assist purchasers in making purchasing decisions, including: (1) Requirements and direction for display of any label, (2) requirements for including on any label, whether separately attached or shipped with, the covered equipment, such additional information relating to the energy efficiency, energy use, and other measures of energy consumption, including instructions for the maintenance, use, or repair of the covered equipment, as the Secretary determines necessary to provide adequate information to purchasers, and (3) requirements that printed matter which is displayed or display or distributed at the point of sale of such equipment disclose such information as may be required under this section to disclose on the label of such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315(c)) The inclusion of the statement “Certified to UL 1004:10-2019,” if applicable, would be likely to assist purchasers, as it provides purchasers additional information about the energy efficiency of the product. (
As discussed previously, labeling rules applicable to electric motors shall provide that the label for electric motors indicate the energy efficiency of the motor on the permanent nameplate attached to the motor. (42 U.S.C. 6315(d)(1)) When establishing labels for electric motors, DOE must consider the NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1987 (“NEMA MG1-1987”). (42 U.S.C. 6315(d)) Section MG1-12.30 of NEMA MG1-1987 specifies that the energy efficiency of a motor must be measured in accordance with (1) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 114-1982 Test Procedures for Single Phase Motors; or (2) IEEE 112-1984 Test procedures for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators.
IEEE 114-1982 has been updated and replaced by newer versions. The most recent version was published in 2010 (
IEEE 112-1984 also has been updated and replaced by newer versions. The most recent version was published in in 2017 (
The labeling provisions in EPCA specific to electric motors require that equipment catalogs and other marketing materials prominently display the energy efficiency of the electric motor. (42 U.S.C. 6315(d)(2)) After reviewing equipment catalogs, DOE has determined that motor efficiency in general, and specifically pool pump motor efficiency, is typically provided at full load. The disclosure of motor energy efficiency in the marketing materials will inform consumers about the energy efficiency of potential replacement motors. This would allow consumers to compare the efficiency of the original DPPP motor with potential replacement motors and ultimately guide consumers on selecting an appropriate motor when a replacement for the original motor is necessary. Accordingly, DOE proposes that the equipment catalog and other marketing materials for DPPP motors include the full load energy efficiency of the DPPP motor model.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, several interested parties met with DOE and recommended as an alternative to the August 2018 petition that DOE adopt a labeling requirement for DPPP motors based on UL 1004-10:2019. These interested parties stated that requirements of UL 1004-10:2019 are identical to those suggested in the Joint Petition and that the UL standard was developed to identify DPPP motors that could be used in DPPPs that comply with the DOE standards. (APSP and NEMA, No. 43-b, at p. 9)
As discussed, UL 1004-10:2019 establishes definitions and marking requirements for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings. UL 1004-10:2019 requires that pool pump motors certified to that standard be permanently marked with their total horsepower and speed configuration (either single-speed, two-speed, multi-speed, or variable-speed).
Pool pump motors with a total horsepower greater than or equal to 1.15 THP are primarily used in standard-size self-priming pool filter pumps (52 percent of DPPP motor applications), while pool pump motors below 1.15 THP are typically found in small-size self-priming pool filter pumps, non-self-priming pool filter pumps, and pressure cleaner booster pumps (which represent 48 percent of the DPPP motor applications).
Additionally, UL 1004-10:2019 ensures that pool pump motors with freeze protection controls are shipped with the freeze protection feature disabled, or with the following default, user-adjustable settings: (a) The default dry-bulb air temperature setting shall be no greater than 40 °F; (b) the default run time setting shall be no greater than 1 hour (before the temperature is rechecked); and (c) the default motor speed in freeze protection mode shall not be more than half of the maximum operating speed. These settings are identical to the requirements for pool pumps with freeze protection controls found at 10 CFR 431.465(h) and ensure replacement motors have the same settings as original motors used in pool pumps. UL 1004-10:2019 also describes steps to follow in order to verify that these settings are included in pool pump motors with freeze protection controls.
Accordingly, DOE proposes that the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” be included on DPPP motors that are certified to UL-1004:2019. The inclusion of this statement would not prohibit the sale of DPPP motors that are not certified to UL 1004-10:2019 for other applications, but it evidences to consumers which motors will ensure that the efficiency level of the original DPPP motor is maintained.
For any labeling requirement under 42 U.S.C. 6315, EPCA states that the Secretary shall not promulgate labeling rules for “any class of industrial equipment unless it has determined that (1) labeling in accordance with this section is technologically and economically feasible with respect to such class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from such labeling; and (3) labeling in accordance with this section is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.” (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)) Accordingly, DOE has reviewed the proposed labeling requirement that the nameplate disclose the energy efficiency of a DPPP motor as determined by the proposed test procedure and that DPPP motors be marked, if applicable, with the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019.” In addition, DOE has reviewed the proposed requirements for equipment catalogs and other marketing materials prominently displaying the energy efficiency of the electric motor.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed labeling requirement is technologically and economically feasible. As discussed previously, the proposed rule would incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the test procedure and require that the nameplate disclose the energy efficiency of a DPPP motor as determined by the proposed test procedure. In addition, the proposed rule would incorporate by reference UL 1004:10-2019 and require manufacturers to include the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” on the nameplate of DPPP motors, if the motor is certified to UL-1004:2019. Finally, the proposed rule would require that to the extent manufacturers provide equipment catalogs and other marketing materials, such catalogs and materials would be required to prominently display the energy efficiency of the electric motor. After reviewing product catalogs and purchasing a range of electric motor products for inspection, DOE has found that electric motor manufacturers include nameplates on their equipment, and typically these nameplates include the equipment's model number, horsepower, and other motor attributes. In addition, equipment catalogs also include similar information, with at least one DPPP motor manufacturer currently including energy efficiency information in its marketing materials and catalogs. DOE purchased and reviewed a selection of DPPPs from three different manufacturers and tentatively determined that the existing labels on the integrated motors include adequate blank space that would allow for incorporation of energy efficiency and an additional statement regarding the status of certification to UL 1004-10:2019 without needing to increase the size of the label. Furthermore, for those DPPP motor manufacturers that would be required to include additional energy efficiency information in their marketing materials and catalogs, DOE tentatively concludes that there is adequate space that would allow for the addition of the energy efficiency information. Given that manufacturers currently include nameplates on motors that would be classified as DPPP motors under the proposed rule, there would be no physical limitations on including the proposed statement, and that there would be no physical limitations to include the energy efficiency information in marketing materials and catalogs, DOE has tentatively determined that it is technologically feasible for DPPP motor manufacturers to provide the labeling requirements as proposed.
DOE has also tentatively determined that it is economically feasible
DOE also estimates the requirement to include energy efficiency information in equipment catalogs and other marketing materials of DPPP motors, to the extent that such catalogs and materials are provided by a manufacturer, would also not be cost prohibitive. As discussed previously, DOE tentatively concluded that there is adequate space in catalogs and marketing materials that would allow for the addition of the energy efficiency information. Accordingly, DOE estimates that each DPPP motor manufacturer would spend approximately four additional hours annually to include this value on all equipment catalogs and marketing materials for all DPPP motor models. Based on estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, DOE estimated $44.57 as the hourly rate for a “marketing specialist” or equivalent employee performing this task, resulting in an annual cost of $178 per manufacturer. See section III.F.1.d for further details.
DOE believes that DPPP motor manufacturers would not have suggested that DOE promulgate regulations that would impose costs that those manufacturers found to be uneconomic. Accordingly, DOE has tentatively determined that requiring nameplate labels to provide energy efficiency and the “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” statement, if applicable, in addition to equipment catalogs and other marketing materials prominently displaying the energy efficiency, would be economically feasible. Additional discussion of the estimated costs of the proposed labeling requirement is provided in section III.F.
DOE's proposal is also consistent with the requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d), Mar. 7, 1996, 110 Stat. 783,
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed labeling requirement would likely result in significant energy savings. DOE estimates that the proposed labeling rule would save 1.0 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy over a 30-year period (2021-2050). This energy savings estimate assumes all consumers would select replacement motors that are as efficient as motors sold in compliant pool pumps (
DOE used information from the DPPP direct final rule technical support document (Chapter 9 Shipments Analysis and Chapter 10 National Impact Analysis) to estimate the energy savings from the proposed labeling requirement.
The calculations are provided in a spreadsheet published in the rulemaking docket.
The energy savings estimated by DOE (1.0 quads) are lower than the estimate of 1.9 quads provided by the interested parties. (March 2019
• The interested parties' calculation was performed for the entire market of pool pump motors and includes energy savings from categories of pool pump motors for which DOE is not proposing a labeling requirement;
• The interested parties assumed that the repair frequency of all pool pumps would increase from 40 percent to 60 percent as a result of the pool pump energy conservation standards. However, in the January 2017 Direct Final Rule, DOE assumed that the repair frequency would increase only for some categories of pool pumps (
• The interested parties assumed that the 40 percent repair frequency corresponds to replacement (
• The interested parties' estimate accounts for the energy savings from the increase in sales of pool pumps and does not account for the savings from
Finally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed labeling requirement would likely assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. A statement on the nameplate indicating certification to UL 1004-10:2019, if applicable, would inform purchasers that the equipment conforms to the industry standard for DPPP motors. Additionally, certification to UL 1004-10:2019 specifies that the nameplate on the DPPP motor includes the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor. This information, combined with the energy efficiency information on the nameplate and in marketing materials and catalogs, would allow consumers to compare replacement motor models with the specifications of motors that are currently installed in their DPPPs, allowing for replacement with motors of comparable energy efficiency and speed configuration. In addition, interested parties highlighted the historical success of consumer labeling programs for electric motors. In 2001, NEMA introduced the NEMA Premium compliance mark. Within three years of this introduction, market penetration of premium efficiency motor designs jumped from 10% to over 25% of units sold, which indicates that compliance certifications on consumer labels may be effective in informing consumer purchasing decisions. (March 2019
For the reasons discussed, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed labeling requirement (1) would be technologically and economically feasible; (2) would likely result in significant energy savings; and (3) would likely assist consumers in making purchasing decisions, as required by EPCA. Accordingly, DOE proposes to establish a labeling requirement for DPPP motors.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed requirement for DPPP motor manufacturers to label each DPPP motor with its measured energy efficiency on the motor's nameplate and to include that same information in marketing materials and catalogs, in addition to a statement indicating certification to UL 1004-10:2019, if applicable. Further, DOE seeks comment on whether this requirement is technologically and economically feasible, likely to result in significant energy savings, and likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions
DOE seeks data from manufacturers (and any other interested parties) regarding the cost of implementing the proposed labeling requirement, and the discrepancy between the costs DOE estimated to the costs estimated in the March 2019
DOE also seeks comment on the degree to which the proposed labeling requirement should consider and be harmonized further with UL 1004-10:2019 or other relevant industry standards for DPPP motors, and whether any changes to the proposed Federal labeling requirement would provide additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate labeling requirements, without modification.
DOE proposes to require that the permanent nameplates of DPPP motors be clearly marked with the energy efficiency of the motor. For DPPP motors that are certified to UL-1004:2019, DOE proposes to also require the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”. Each manufacturer of equipment that would be covered under this proposal would be required to affix a label that meets, and is displayed in accordance with, the requirements of such rule. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a)-(d)) DOE is proposing that manufacturers or any distributor, retailer, or private labeler of DPPP motors be required to include the energy efficiency in any catalog from which a subject DPPP motor may be purchased, but is not proposing to require that such a catalog include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019,” if applicable. (
EPCA requires that each manufacturer of covered equipment to which a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6315 applies must notify DOE—
(A) Of the models in current production (and starting serial numbers of those models) to which such rule applies not later than 60 days after the compliance date; and
(B) Prior to commencement of production, of all models subsequently produced (and starting serial numbers of those models) to which such rule applies. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(1))
That is, for DPPP motors already being produced, manufacturers would be required to report such DPPP motors to DOE within 60 days following the compliance date (
EPCA does not define “commencement of production” and DOE is proposing only to specify that “commencement of production” must be a date prior to the distribution of a DPPP motor in commerce for sale. The exact point at which production commences may be understood differently between manufacturers depending on production planning and strategies. Regardless, “commencement of production” occurs prior to a new DPPP motor (
In addition to providing the manufacturer's model number, manufacturers would also be required to provide the associated brand name of the DPPP motor, the full load efficiency of the motor model as determined pursuant to the proposed test procedure, and whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019. If a DPPP
The report would also require submission of basic information such as the manufacturer's name and address. The report would also require inclusion of a reporting statement that includes the date, the name of the company official signing the statement, and his or her signature, title, address, telephone number, and email address; and a statement that: (1) All information reported in the report is true, accurate, and complete; and (2) the manufacturer is aware of the penalties associated with violations of EPCA, the regulations thereunder, and 18 U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly making false statements to the Federal Government. Reports would be submitted electronically through DOE's existing Certification Compliance Management System.
Manufacturers would be required to use reporting templates to report to DOE, within 60 days of the compliance date of any final rule, all subject DPPP motor models (reported according to the manufacturer's model number) in current production. Manufacturers would also be required to use reporting templates to report, prior to commencement of production, all subject DPPP motor with a previously unreported manufacturer's model number that are subsequently produced. To help interested parties better appreciate the proposed reporting requirement, a draft reporting template
As discussed, DOE is proposing reporting requirements based in part on the “manufacturer's model number.” DOE defines “manufacturer's model number” as the identifier used by a manufacturer to uniquely identify the group of identical or essentially identical covered products or covered equipment to which a particular unit belongs. 10 CFR 429.2. The manufacturer's model number typically appears on the product nameplates, in product catalogs and in other product advertising literature. Id. If the UL certification status were to change for a DPPP motor for which a report was previously submitted (
Additionally, DOE is proposing to permit third party submitters (
If DOE were to finalize the labeling rule as proposed, several acts would be prohibited. For example, EPCA provides that it is unlawful for any manufacturer or private labeler to distribute in commerce any new covered equipment required to bear a label unless such equipment is labeled as required; for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to remove a required label; and for any manufacturer to fail to provide energy efficiency information required to be provided. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6302(a)(1)-(3))
DOE seeks comment on the proposed reporting requirement and the proposed reporting template.
DOE also requests comment on the proposal not to require that the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” be included in catalogs that sell a DPPP motor that is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, and not to require manufacturers to submit a certification report to DOE regarding a motor's compliance with UL 1004-10:2019, if applicable.
EPCA requires that test procedures and labeling proposed by DOE not be unduly burdensome to conduct. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 to reference the definitions; incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the proposed test procedure; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor to include (1) the full load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure and (2) the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019,” if applicable; require catalogs and marketing materials include the full load efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and indicate whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; require manufacturers to report to DOE the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate; and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, require manufacturers to report the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
DOE's analysis of this proposal indicates that, if finalized, it would result in a net cost to manufacturers.
Further discussion of the cost impacts of the proposed test procedure and labeling amendments are presented in the following paragraphs.
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 without modification to reference the definitions published in UL 1004-10:2019, as generally recommended by the Joint Petitioners. UL 1004-10:2019 establishes definitions and marking requirements for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings. Incorporating by reference UL 1004-10:2019 would harmonize DOE's test procedure and labeling requirement with current industry practice. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposal to incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 without modification would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers and therefore would not incur any additional costs.
DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that there are no impacts and associated costs of incorporating by reference UL 1004-10:2019.
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of those electric motors used in DPPP applications. CSA C747-09 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the energy efficiency of certain motors, and is applicable to DPPP motors in scope sold in North America. California Title 20 regulations for pool pumps require manufacturers to submit the motor efficiency that shall be verifiable by IEEE 114-2001.
DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that there are no impacts and associated costs of incorporating by reference CSA C747-09 as the test procedure for DPPP motors.
DOE proposes to require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor to include (1) the full load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure, and (2) the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019,” for DPPP motors that are certified to UL 1004-10:2019,
As discussed in section III.D.4 of this NOPR, manufacturers currently include nameplates on electric motors that would be classified as DPPP motors under the proposed rule. Therefore, the additional costs for the labeling proposal would be in relation to the label redesign, which includes the development of a new label layout by an internal resource, production of test samples, an internal committee meeting to approve final designs, and implementation across the assembly lines. DOE estimates the one-time manufacturer conversion costs associated with label redesign to be $10,000 per DPPP motor manufacturer. DOE estimates there are five DPPP motor manufacturers. This estimate was based on a review of catalogs and
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers from the proposed nameplate labeling requirement.
DOE proposes that the equipment catalog and other marketing materials include the full load energy efficiency of the DPPP motor. DOE estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers would be required to include more information than some DPPP motor manufacturers currently include. Therefore, DOE estimates that DPPP motor manufacturers would incur an additional burden to include this value on all equipment catalogs and marketing materials. DOE estimates that each DPPP motor manufacturer would spend approximately four additional hours annually to include this value on all equipment catalogs and marketing materials for all DPPP motor models. DOE used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate the hourly wage of an employee responsible for updating these equipment catalogs and marketing materials. DOE estimated an hourly wage of $34.41 based on this data.
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers due to the proposed equipment catalog and marketing material updates.
DOE proposes that manufacturers would be required to use reporting templates to report to DOE, within 60 days of the compliance date of any final rule, all subject DPPP motor models (reported according to the manufacturer's model number) in current production, and indicate whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019. Furthermore, manufacturers would be required to use the reporting template to report to DOE the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate, and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification. In addition, manufacturers would also be required to use reporting templates to report, prior to commencement of production, all subject DPPP motor with a previously unreported manufacturer's model number that are subsequently produced. However, a manufacturer would be required to report each manufacturer's model number for DPPP motors subject to the labeling requirement and the associate representations only once; this would not be an annual reporting requirement and there would be no requirement to report the discontinuance of a manufacturer's model number. A draft reporting template is included in the docket.
DOE estimates that the reporting to DOE would require approximately eight hours of time from a product/compliance/design engineer for each DPPP motor manufacturer every year, as new DPPP motor models are estimated to be introduced each year. Manufacturers would be required to report the manufacturer's model numbers of the DPPP motors subject to the reporting requirement, indicate whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, and report the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate, which is information manufacturers would be expected to already have. If a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, manufacturers would be required to report the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification, which also is information manufacturers would be expected to already have. DOE used the same labor cost estimates used in the previous section, III.F.1.d of this NOPR. DOE again used $44.57 as the hourly fully-burdened labor rate for a marketing specialist to perform this task. DOE estimates there are five DPPP motor manufacturers. Therefore, DOE estimates the total cost to industry is approximately $1,783 annually to comply with this proposed test procedure amendment.
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers due to the proposed reporting requirement.
On February 14, 2020, DOE finalized its rule, “Procedures for Use in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment” (“the Process Rule”). (85 FR 8626) The Process Rule requires DOE to adopt industry test standards as DOE test procedures for covered products and equipment, unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that equipment during a representative use cycle. Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430, subpart C; 10 CFR 431.4.
The proposed test procedures for DPPP motors at new subpart Z to part 431 would incorporate by reference the test standard CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed in 2014), Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors, without modification. CSA C747-09 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the energy efficiency of certain motors, and is applicable to DPPP motors in scope sold in North America. CSA C747-09 includes specifications for the test setup,
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test procedure for DPPP motors.
DOE has identified two additional industry standards that are relevant to DPPP motors but has tentatively determined that they are not appropriate for the purpose of this proposal. As discussed in section III.D.1, IEEE 114-2010, Test Procedures for Single Phase Motors, and IEEE 112-2017, Test procedures for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, are alternative industry test procedures that are relevant for this NOPR. However, IEEE 114-2010 is applicable only to single phase AC induction motors tested at full speed, and cannot be applied to the entire range of pool pump motors addressed in this NOPR. Furthermore, IEEE 112-2017 provides test procedures for AC induction polyphase motors without drives and is not applicable to DPPP motors as defined in this proposal, given the proposed exemption for polyphase motors.
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the proposed test procedure and labeling requirements for DPPP motors. Note that DOE also issued an RFI to seek more information on whether its test procedures are reasonably designed, as required by EPCA, to produce results that reflects the energy use or efficiency of a product during a representative average use cycle. 84 FR 9721 (Mar. 18, 2019). DOE particularly seeks comment on this issue as it pertains to the test procedure for DPPP motors, as well as information that would help DOE create a test procedure that is not unduly burdensome to conduct. Comments regarding repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome. DOE also recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. In this NOPR, DOE seeks comment on the same issues presented in the RFI as they may be applicable to DPPP motors.
DOE also requests information that would help DOE create procedures and labeling requirements that would limit manufacturer burden through streamlining or simplifying requirements, while complying with the requirements of EPCA. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE must manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to DPPP motors consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE establishes or amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
If DOE were to establish a new, or amend an existing test procedure, EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period to begin making representations if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (
EPCA also requires DOE to prescribe a labeling rule for electric motors no later than 12 months after DOE prescribes a test procedure for that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315(d)). The labeling rule shall provide that the labeling of any electric motor manufactured after the 12-month period beginning on the date DOE prescribes the rule shall require the disclosure of certain information—
EPCA outlines three distinct dates in regard to compliance and effective dates of a labeling rule for electric motors. First, the date the labeling rule is established must be no later than 12 months after the corresponding test procedure for that electric motor is prescribed—which DOE views as the date of publication in the
Before prescribing any labeling rule for covered equipment, including DPPP motors, the Secretary must consult with, and obtain the written views of, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) with respect to such rules. (42 U.S.C. 6315(f)) The FTC shall promptly provide such written views upon the request of the Secretary. (
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rulemaking constitutes a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(B) of the Order, DOE has provided to OIRA: (i) The text of the draft regulatory action, together with a reasonably detailed description of the need for the regulatory action and an explanation of how the regulatory action will meet that need; and (ii) An assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the regulatory action, including an explanation of the manner in which the regulatory action is consistent with a statutory mandate.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference UL 1004-10:2019 to reference the definitions; incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the proposed test procedure; require the nameplate of a subject DPPP motor (1) to include the full load efficiency of the motor as determined under the proposed test procedure and (2) if the subject DPPP motor is certified to UL-1004:2019, to include the statement, “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”; require catalogs and marketing materials include the full load efficiency of the motor; require manufacturers to notify DOE of the subject DPPP motor models in current production (according to the manufacturer's model number) and indicate whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; require manufacturers to report to DOE the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate; and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, require manufacturers to report the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification.
The inclusion of the statement “Certified to UL 1004:10-2019,” if applicable, would be likely to assist purchasers, as it provides purchasers additional information about the energy efficiency of the product. (
DOE estimates that the proposed labeling requirements would save 1.0 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy over a 30-year period (2021-2050). The total energy savings from this proposed labeling rule can be broken down into two segments: (1) The preserved energy savings from the January 2017 Direct Final Rule (0.8 quads) and (2) additional energy savings (0.2 quads) from an increase in shipments of compliant pool pumps and pool pump motors. The January 2017 Direct Final Rule assumed that, even in the absence of DPPP motor requirements, all consumers purchasing pool pumps after 2021 would select replacement motors that are as efficient as the motors sold in the original pump and included the savings originating from the sales of replacement motors in the total energy savings for this rule. Considering the recent inputs from interested parties, DOE determined that a labeling rule is necessary to ensure these energy savings are preserved (0.8 quads). The additional energy savings (0.2 quads) are attributable to DPPPs that were manufactured prior to the DPPP energy conservation standards compliance date (
This energy savings estimate assumes all consumers would select replacement motors that are as efficient as motors sold in compliant pool pumps (
DOE has also tentatively determined that the proposed amendments would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE's analysis of this proposal indicates that, if finalized, it would result in a net cost to manufacturers, as provided in Table IV.1 and IV.2 of this NOPR.
As discussed in the prior sections, as required under EPCA DOE has tentatively determined that (1) the proposed labeling requirement is technologically and economically feasible with respect to any particular equipment class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from such labeling; and (3) labeling in accordance with section 6315 is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h))
On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. This proposed rule is estimated to result in a net cost, yielding annualized costs of approximately $4,300 using a perpetual time horizon discounted to 2016 at a 7 percent discount rate. This is the annualized cost in 2016$, discounted to 2016, for the E.O. 13771 purpose of comparing rules' costs across years, and is not to be confused with the annualized values reported in section IV.A above, which are for the E.O. 12866 purpose of benefit-cost analysis. Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to establish a test procedure and a labeling requirement for DPPP motors under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 2017 NAICS code for DPPP motors is 335312, motor and generator manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335312 is 1,250 employees.
DOE identified five DPPP motor manufacturers that sell DPPP motors in the United States. Among these, DOE determined that four of these DPPP motor manufacturers each have more than 1,250 total employees and therefore do not met SBA's definition of a “small business.” DOE determined that one DPPP motor manufacturer has fewer than 1,250 total employees and potentially meets SBA's definition of a “small business.”
DOE estimates that this one potential small business would incur costs associated with a label redesign, which includes the development of a new label layout by an internal resource, production of test samples, an internal committee meeting to approve final designs, and implementation across the assembly lines. DOE estimates the one-time manufacturer conversion costs
In addition to this one-time cost, the one potential small business would incur a burden to include the full load energy efficiency of the DPPP motor on all equipment catalogs and marketing materials prior to the compliance year and for all years new DPPP motors are introduced into the market. DOE estimates that this one potential small business would spend approximately four additional hours to include this value on all equipment catalogs and marketing materials for all DPPP motor models introduced each year. DOE used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate the hourly fully- burdened labor rate of $44.57 for an employee responsible for updating these equipment catalogs and marketing materials.
Additionally, DOE used data from the American Survey of Manufacturers to calculate that wages represent 77.2 percent of total employer compensation, based on the 2015 and 2016 annual payroll and total fringe benefits data.
Therefore, DOE used an hourly fully-burdened labor rate of $44.57 = $34.41/0.772.
Lastly, the one potential small business would incur an additional burden to report to DOE all subject DPPP motor models (reported according to the manufacturer's model number) in current production, regardless of whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate, and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification. The same additional burden to report to DOE would be applicable for all years new DPPP motors are introduced into the market. DOE estimates that this one potential small business would spend approximately eight hours to complete this report to DOE. DOE again used $44.57 as the hourly fully-burdened labor rate for an employee to perform this task. Therefore, DOE estimates that the total cost for this potential small business to comply with this proposed reporting requirement is $357.
DOE estimates that the remainder of this proposal would be unlikely to cause any DPPP motor manufacturer, including this potential small business DOE identified, to incur any additional costs. Therefore, DOE estimates that total cost incurred by this one potential small business in any one year would be approximately $10,535 due to the proposed requirements in this NOPR. DOE estimates the annual revenue of this one potential small business is approximately $35 million. These costs represent significantly less than one percent of the small business's annual revenue. Consequently, on the basis of this information, DOE initially concludes that this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on this one potential small business.
Therefore, DOE certifies that the impacts of the proposed nameplate labeling requirement, energy efficiency disclosure requirement, and reporting requirement in this NOPR would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
DOE seeks comment on its initial conclusion regarding the existence of only one small business (
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed labeling rule would require manufacturers of DPPP motors subject to the proposed requirements to provide a label on the subject DPPP motor, disclose the full load energy efficiency in catalogs and marketing materials, report to DOE the manufacturer's model numbers of such DPPP motors that they manufacturer and whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, report to DOE the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate, and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification. The collection-of-information requirement as proposed is subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA.
In accordance with the PRA, DOE is requesting OMB approval for the new information collection to require the labeling and reporting of DPPP motors.
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to require manufacturers of DPPP motors: Label such motors with the full load efficiency of the motor as determined pursuant to the specified DOE test procedure and the following statement, for DPPP motors that are certified to UL 1004-10:2019: “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019;” disclose the full load energy efficiency in marketing materials; report to DOE the manufacturer's model number of equipment subject to the DPPP motor requirements and whether the motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019; and report to DOE the full load efficiency as represented on the nameplate, and if a DPPP motor is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as provided on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification.
Labeling, Disclosure, and Reporting Requirement for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pump Motors.
This is a new collection.
The collection-of-information requirement for the labeling, disclosure, and reporting proposal is subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. If the proposed rule is made final, DOE proposes that not later than 60 days after the compliance date (
Manufacturers are not likely to require any significant capital costs to comply with the amendments. Manufacturers are already affixing a nameplate to the DPPP motors that are the subject of this proposed requirement in accordance with industry standards. DOE also estimates that the manufacturers already maintain records regarding the DPPP motors manufactured, including the associated manufacturer's number, as part of their standard business practice. In addition, manufacturers currently maintain the specifications of motors as part of their testing of models pursuant to the industry standards. Finally, DOE notes that the UL certification program requires manufacturers to retain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the UL certification/mark program. If the proposal were made final, manufacturers would be required to maintain records subject to 10 CFR 429.71, which requires that the records shall be retained by the manufacturer for a period of two years from the date that the manufacturer or third party submitter has notified DOE that the model has been discontinued in commerce. 10 CFR 429.71(c). The records retention period would provide that documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance is maintained by manufacturers while equipment is available on the market. DOE expects that manufacturers would be able to rely on their current systems of record retention for the proposed requirements, if finalized. Accordingly, the proposal in this NOPR would not result in an increase in manufacturer burden with regard to record retention.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Thus, the estimated one-time burden attributable to the proposed rule is $450,000 for labeling (5 manufacturers × $10,000). Additionally, the estimated annual burden attributable to the proposed rule is 60 hours for marketing and reporting requirements (4 hours for marketing materials × 5 manufacturers plus 8 hours for reporting × 5 manufacturers). The annual burden cost is approximately $2,674 (60 hours × $44.57).
DOE requests comment on its estimates of the total annual hour and cost burdens resulting from collection of information requirement for the labeling, disclosure, and reporting proposal.
Please submit any comments to DOE according to the instructions provided under the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule. In this proposed rule, DOE proposes a test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pump motors. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met, or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to establish a labeling requirement for DPPP motors would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The proposed labeling requirement for DPPP motors would require that the nameplate disclose the energy efficiency of a DPPP motor as determined by the proposed test procedure and that the equipment catalog and other marketing materials also include the energy efficiency of the DPPP motor. In addition, the proposed labeling requirement for DPPP motors would require a statement regarding certification to the commercial standard UL 1004-10:2019. DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by CSA, titled, Energy Efficiency Test Methods for Small Motors, CSA C747-09 (reaffirmed in 2014). CSA C747-09 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the energy efficiency of certain motors, and is applicable to pool pump motors in scope sold in North America. The test procedure proposed in this NOPR references various sections of CSA C747-09 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. CSA C747-09 is readily available at CSA's website at
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the standard published by UL, titled, Outline of Investigation for Pool Pump Motors, UL 1004-10:2019. UL 1004-10:2019 establishes definitions and marking requirements for certain pool pump motors and describes methods to verify the information conveyed by those required markings. The labeling requirements proposed in this NOPR are based on UL 1004-10 in accordance with the recommendations from the Joint Petitioners. UL 1004-10 is readily available at UL's website at
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the
Additionally, you may request an in-person meeting to be held prior to the close of the request period provided in the
Please note that foreign nationals participating in the public meeting are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586-1214 or by email:
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish a test procedure and labeling requirement for DPPP motors with a total horsepower of less than or equal to 5 THP, with the exception of: Polyphase motors capable of operating without a drive and distributed in commerce without a drive that converts single-phase power to polyphase power; waterfall pump motors; rigid electric spa pump motors; storable electric spa pump motors; integral cartridge-filter pool pump motors; and integral sand-filter pool pump motors.
(2) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference the definitions included in UL 1004-10:2019.
(3) DOE requests comment on the proposed use of the term “manufacturer's model number” as defined at 10 CFR 431.2 for the purpose of reporting.
(4) DOE requests comments on its proposal to incorporate by reference CSA C747-09 as the prescribed test method for evaluating the energy efficiency of DPPP motors.
(5) DOE requests comments on its proposal to use full load efficiency as the energy efficiency metric for pool pump motors.
(6) DOE seeks comment on the proposed requirement for DPPP motor manufacturers to label each DPPP motor with its measured energy efficiency on the motor's nameplate and to include that same information in marketing materials and catalogs, in addition to a statement indicating certification to UL 1004-10:2019, if applicable. Further, DOE seeks comment on whether this requirement is technologically and economically feasible, likely to result in significant energy savings, and likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.
(7) DOE seeks data from manufacturers (and any other interested parties) regarding the cost of implementing the proposed labeling requirement.
(8) DOE also seeks comment on the degree to which the proposed labeling requirement should consider and be harmonized further with UL 1004-10:2019 or other relevant industry standards for DPPP motors, and whether any changes to the proposed Federal labeling requirement would provide additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate labeling requirements, without modification.
(9) DOE also requests comment on the proposal not to require that the statement “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019” be included in catalogs that sell a DPPP motor that are certified to UL 1004-10:2019, and not to require manufacturers to submit a certification report to DOE regarding a motor's compliance with UL 1004-10:2019, if applicable.
(10) DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that there are no impacts and associated costs of incorporating by reference UL 1004-10:2019.
(11) DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that there are no impacts and associated costs of incorporating by reference CSA C747-09 as the test procedure for DPPP motors.
(12) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers from the proposed nameplate labeling requirement.
(13) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers due to the proposed equipment catalog and marketing material updates.
(14) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the estimated impact and associated costs to DPPP motor manufacturers due to the proposed reporting requirement.
(15) DOE seeks comment on its initial conclusion regarding the existence of only one small business (
(16) DOE requests comment on its estimates of the total annual hour and cost burdens resulting from collection of information requirement for the labeling, disclosure, and reporting proposal.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 28, 2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
* * * This subpart does not cover electric motors that are `dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,' which are addressed in subpart Z of this part.
* * * This subpart does not cover electric motors that are `dedicated-purpose pool pump motors,' which are addressed in subpart Z of this part.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) CSA C747-09 (R2014) (“CSA C747-09”), “Energy efficiency test method for small motors” (October 2009); IBR approved for § 431.484.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) UL 1004-10:2019, “Outline of Investigation for Pool pump motors” (July 2019); IBR approved for §§ 431.481, and 431.483 .
(2) [Reserved]
The definitions applicable to this subpart are defined in UL 1004-10:2019 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.482).
(a)
(b)
(a)
(i) The full load efficiency of the motor model as determined pursuant to the test procedure prescribed under § 431.484(b); and
(ii) For those motors that are certified to UL 1004-10:219, the following statement: “Certified to UL 1004-10:2019”.
(2)
(b)
(1) On each page of catalogs that list the motor as an offering for sale by the motor's manufacturer; and
(2) In all other materials used to market the motor.
(c)
(1) The mean of the sample X which is defined by
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The manufacturer's name and address;
(2) The manufacturer's model number(s) of the dedicated-purpose pool pump motor(s) subject to the labeling requirement at § 431.485;
(3) For each reported model number:
(i) Whether the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019;
(ii) The full load efficiency of the motor model as determined pursuant to the test procedure prescribed under § 431.484(b), and
(iii) If the motor model is certified to UL 1004-10:2019, the total horsepower and speed configuration of the motor as represented on the nameplate pursuant to the UL 1004-10:2019 certification;
(4) The date, the name of the company official signing the statement, and his or her signature, title, address, telephone number, and email address; and
(5) The following compliance statement, “All information reported in the report is true, accurate, and complete. The manufacturer is aware of the penalties associated with violations of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317), the regulations thereunder, and 18 U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly making false statements to the Federal Government.”
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to update the type approval requirements for certain types of equipment that survival craft are required to carry on U.S.-flagged vessels. The proposed rule is deregulatory and would remove Coast Guard type approval requirements for nine of these types of survival craft equipment and replace them with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that the equipment complies with a consensus standard.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 4, 2020. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB on or before December 4, 2020.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0107 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
For information about this document, call or email LT Brock Hashimoto, Lifesaving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1426, email
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we will consider doing so if public comments indicate that a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
The legal authority for this proposed rule is found in Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4302, 4502, 7101, 8101 and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b). This proposed rule would update the type approval requirements for 12 types of survival craft equipment that survival craft are required to carry on certain, specified U.S.-flagged vessels—bilge pumps, compasses, fire extinguishers, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, knives, signaling mirrors, provisions (food rations), emergency drinking water, and sea anchors—as well as some of the survival craft equipment required for sailing school vessels. For nine of these types of equipment, the proposed rule would replace the Coast Guard type approval requirement with a requirement that the
Updating type approval requirements for survival craft equipment reduces the financial burden and amount of time spent by equipment manufacturers, vessel owners and operators, and the Coast Guard on current Coast Guard type approval requirements for survival craft equipment.
Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly updated since they were published. After thorough review of these requirements, as well as Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current maritime industry practice, and the availability of new consensus standards, we believe that the additional scrutiny provided by Coast Guard type approval does not increase the safety of the following nine types of survival craft equipment: Bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid kits,
For these types of equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. This places a burden on the equipment manufacturers, which in turn affects the design costs of complying with the outdated standard, the administrative overhead costs, and the time-to-market costs of manufacturing and selling equipment. It also places a financial burden on the vessel owners and operators who are required to carry this specific approved equipment on board their survival craft. This equipment is frequently more costly and more difficult to obtain than similar products that are not type approved. Finally, it places a burden on the Coast Guard to review and approve this equipment without commensurate increases in safety.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend several approval and carriage requirements in title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, we are proposing to remove current approval requirements for first-aid kits in part 121 under subchapter K, part 160 under subchapter Q, and part 184 under subchapter T, and to update those requirements to industry standards. In addition, we propose removing approval requirements for certain survival craft equipment and provisions in part 160 under subchapter Q and in part 169 under subchapter R, and updating those requirements to industry standards. Finally, we are proposing to update the carriage requirements for lifesaving systems on certain inspected vessels in part 199 under subchapter W, by replacing some Coast Guard-specific standards with voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed rule would add a new subpart 160.046 (Emergency Provisions) to part 160 of title 46 of the CFR to consolidate and update applicable standards, including making mandatory several voluntary consensus standards consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272). This rule would make mandatory three voluntary consensus standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO 18813:2006 “Ships and marine technology—Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats” (referred to as ISO 18813); ISO 17339:2018 “Ships and marine technology—Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats” (referred to as ISO 17339); and ISO 25862:2009 “Ships and marine technology—Marine magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices” (referred to as ISO 25862).
While the International Maritime Organization (IMO) does specify some standards for survival craft equipment affected by this proposed rule, it does not stipulate that the affected survival craft equipment be approved by the Administration. In some cases (such as first-aid kits and drinking water), the LSA Code references ISO 18813 as an acceptable standard for the equipment to meet, whereas in others (such as fishing tackle), the LSA Code merely requires that the equipment be carried aboard the specified survival craft.
Table 1 provides a list of the 12 types of survival craft equipment that would be affected by this proposed rule, the proposed changes that would be made to the corresponding regulations, and the affected CFR subparts and sections. Table 2 presents the Coast Guard's baseline matrix, which summarizes the proposed changes by CFR subpart and section.
For a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments presented in table 1, see the discussion that follows table 2.
Lifeboats that are not automatically self-bailing are currently required to carry manual bilge pumps approved by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.044—Pumps, Bilge, Lifeboat, for Merchant Vessels. This proposed rule would be the first substantive update to the design requirements since 1951. In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would only require that bilge pumps comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.3. The rule would remove requirements for the Coast Guard to issue a Certificate of Approval (COA) and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. This would reduce the administrative burden for the manufacturers currently required to have a Coast Guard-issued COA for each bilge pump every 5 years. Subpart 160.044 would be removed and reserved, and the new requirements would be listed in § 199.175(b)(2).
The requirements in ISO 18813 and in subpart 160.044 are similar in nature, with three key differences:
(1) The capacity requirements in ISO 18813 differ from those in subpart 160.044. The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate by reference the ISO 18813 capacity standards and remove the current requirements in § 199.175(b)(2). The Coast Guard believes that the pump capacity in the ISO standard is more appropriate, given the current design of modern lifeboats;
(2) Subpart 160.044 requires that the body of the bilge pump be made of bronze, while ISO 18813 allows the bilge pump to be made of any corrosion-resistant material; and
(3) The requirements outlined in ISO 18813 would allow manufacturers more flexibility in the design and construction of bilge pumps. Any Coast Guard-approved bilge pump on board before this proposed rule becomes effective may remain on board if it remains in good and serviceable condition.
Lifeboats and rescue boats are required to carry a compass approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.014. The Coast Guard currently approves compasses using the “Guidelines for Approval of Magnetic Compasses in Lifeboats/Liferafts,” issued in December 2005, which states that manufacturers must meet either the “USCG Specification for Compasses: Magnetic, Liquid Filled, Mariners, Compensating, for lifeboats for Merchant Vessels,” developed in 1944, or a combination of ISO 613:2000 “Ships and marine technology—Magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices—Class B” (referred to as ISO 613) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)'s standard 60945:2002-08—“Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—General requirements—Methods of testing and required test results” (referred to as IEC 60945).
This proposed rule would update the language in § 199.175(b)(6) to state that the compass in a survival craft must comply with ISO 25862 Annex H.
Additionally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 25862. As a result, the Coast Guard would no longer maintain separate design requirements in this specification.
There would be no substantive change in requirements for the class B magnetic compass because ISO 25862 supersedes and incorporates the requirements in ISO 613. Similarly, the testing requirements for the compasses would remain the same because ISO 25862 references the same testing requirements in IEC 60945 that are currently required for Coast Guard approval. This proposed rule would ensure that the compasses in survival craft would meet the same standard as currently required; however, the move to self-certification would lead to a reduction in paperwork and a reduction in collected information.
The recent rule, “Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment” (81 FR 48219, July 22, 2016), updated the design and approval standards for fire extinguishing equipment by changing the portable fire extinguisher ratings system from a weight-based rating system to the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) performance-based rating system. Under current survival craft regulations, survival craft are required to carry fire extinguishers based on the old weight-based rating system rather than the performance-based rating system established by the aforementioned Harmonization rule (81 FR 48219). This proposed rule would update the requirements in § 199.175(b)(9) to reflect the change in rating system. As the Coast Guard noted in the Harmonization rule (see 81 FR at 48230), the fire extinguishers approved under the old weight-based system and the new performance-based system cost the same, so there is no cost or cost savings associated with this change.
The Coast Guard intends to change current first-aid kit requirements by: (1) Accepting ISO 18813 as the one uniform Coast Guard-approved standard for first-aid kits; (2) updating and consolidating references to this one standard across multiple different first-aid carriage requirements; and 3) grandfathering in all preexisting first-aid kits that comply with the current Coast Guard standards.
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subparts 160.041 and 160.054 and move the requirements for first-aid kits from subparts 160.041 and 160.054 to § 199.175(b)(10). The rule would require that all first-aid kits, except those grandfathered under the proposed § 199.175(c), meet the requirements set forth in ISO 18813. This standard requires a different set of items and a different number of items in the first-aid kit. For a thorough description of the differences in contents between the first-aid kits in subparts 160.041 and 160.054 and ISO 18813, see table 30 in the regulatory analysis (RA). Finally, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with a requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements of ISO 18813.
The Coast Guard also intends to update the references to the standards for first-aid kits carriage requirements in § 121.710 for subchapter K-inspected small passenger vessels, § 184.710 for subchapter T-inspected small passenger vessels, subpart 160.010 for buoyant apparatuses,
In current regulations, the medicine in first-aid kits is required to conform to the latest standards of the
Lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry a fishing kit and tackle approved by the Coast Guard, as directed in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.061. This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.061 and move the requirements for fishing kits from subpart 160.061 to § 199.175(b)(11). The proposed rule would make two substantive changes to the requirements. First, the Coast Guard would mandate that fishing kits meet the standards set forth in ISO 18813.
The requirements in subpart 160.061 were last substantively updated in September 1965 and are very prescriptive (for example, pork bait is no longer commercially available but is a listed requirement in fishing kits). By contrast, ISO 18813 is much less prescriptive, and the Coast Guard does not believe this loss in specificity decreases the usefulness of fishing kits likely to be produced and sold. Instead, this proposed rulemaking would align the Coast Guard requirements for fishing kits with international requirements and would make it easier for fishing kit manufacturers to meet Coast Guard requirements.
All lifeboats are required to carry hatchets approved by the Coast Guard to the specifications found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.013. This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.013 and move the requirements for hatchets from subpart 160.013 to § 199.175(b)(13). This proposed rule would make two substantive changes to the current requirements. First, it would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in § 199.175(b)(13). Second, it would remove some of the current testing requirements, because the Coast Guard does not believe they increase safety. Specifically, the requirements found in subpart 160.013 state that the hatchet must comply with the Federal Specification GGG-A-926—Axes, which was cancelled in 1999.
All lifeboats and SOLAS liferafts are required to carry a jackknife approved by the Coast Guard, as specified in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.043. This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.043 and move the requirements from subpart 160.043 to § 199.175(b)(16). The proposed rule would make four changes to the current requirements. First, this proposed rule would require that a jackknife must comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.19, rather than the existing requirements in subpart 160.043. Second, this proposed rule would update references to the jackknife found in § 199.175. Third, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and would replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. Fourth, Table 1 to 199.175—Survival Craft Equipment would be updated so that a jackknife could replace both a can opener and a knife when they are required as specified in § 199.175.
The standards set by ISO 18813 are broader and less specific than those contained in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.043, but they would not substantively alter the requirements for the design of jackknives. The proposed standards allow the manufacturer additional options for the materials used in the jackknife. There would also be a reduction in the test requirements. ISO 18813 requires only the cutting test, while subpart 160.043 requires three tests, including the same cutting test. The additional tests required by subpart 160.043—the hardness test and the bending and drop test—do not lead to an increase in safety nor an improvement in equipment quality. The Coast Guard therefore proposes to remove the requirements for these tests.
Buoyant apparatuses, inflatable liferafts, lifeboats, rigid liferafts, and rescue boats are required to carry a knife. The proposed rule would revise §§ 160.010-3(a)(12)(ii) and 160.051-11(b) to update the quantity of knives to be carried to match the LSA Code and would add regulatory text allowing a knife to be replaced with a jackknife meeting the requirements in § 199.175(b)(16). If the apparatus is permitted to accommodate 13 or more persons, the proposed rule removes requirements for jackknives in § 199.175(b)(17), which may be substituted for a second non-folding knife, and, instead, proposes they must meet the requirements in ISO 18813.
All lifeboats and inflatable liferafts are required to carry a signaling mirror approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.020, using the “USCG Specification for Signaling Mirrors for Merchant Vessels” issued in October 1944. This proposed rule would update § 199.175(b)(19) and make two changes to the current requirements. First, the Coast Guard proposes to change the standard for signaling mirrors to the requirements in ISO 18813 paragraph 4.23. Second, this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. The requirements in ISO 18813 provide the same safety standards as the 1944 Coast Guard specification, but would allow for more flexibility in meeting the requirements. The 1944 Coast Guard specification requires the mirror to be rectangular; ISO 18813 allows the mirror to be any shape provided the reflective surface meets the minimum area requirements.
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry provisions approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.046, using the “Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Provisions for Lifeboats and Liferafts” issued in August 1997. This proposed rule would create a new subpart 160.046 that outlines the requirements for emergency provisions that must comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.31.
The design and test requirements found in ISO 18813 are the same as those found in the aforementioned Coast Guard guidelines for approval. This proposed rule would formalize those requirements into regulation, while maintaining the current level of safety. Manufacturers would be required to continue to maintain a valid COA under approval number 160.046 and prove compliance with the referenced standards. Unlike the changes regarding the other survival craft equipment described in this proposed rule, there will be no costs or cost savings associated with these provisions as manufacturers will still need a COA under approval number 160.046. The proposed change only formalizes preexisting agency policy, which will lead to no reduction in burden. The Coast Guard is retaining the requirement for a valid COA for provisions because we recognized that provisions is a critical part of lifesaving equipment. We know that manufacturers also produce emergency provisions for other outdoor-related industries.Validating the performance of the provision can only be done by independent laboratory testing rather than by physical inspection. We want to maintain the
All lifeboats, rescue boats, and rigid liferafts are required to carry a sea anchor approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.019. Inflatable liferafts and buoyant apparatuses are also required to carry sea anchors, but those sea anchors are not required to be Coast Guard-approved. The Coast Guard approves sea anchors using either the “USCG Specification for Sea Anchors,” revised in August 1944, or ISO 17339. This proposed rule would update § 199.175(b)(27) and state that the sea anchor must comply with ISO 17339. The Coast Guard also proposes to remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their equipment meets the requirements outlined in ISO 17339. This proposed rule would result in a reduction in paperwork and information collection and a reduction in the overall administrative burden to the manufacturers of sea anchors from no longer requiring a COA.
All lifeboats and SOLAS A pack liferafts are required to carry emergency drinking water approved by the Coast Guard under approval series 160.026. Subpart 160.026—Water, Emergency Drinking (In Hermetically Sealed Containers), for Merchant Vessels, contains the regulations for Coast Guard approval of emergency drinking water. The last substantive update to subpart 160.026 occurred on September 8, 1965 (30 FR 11466). In November 1981, the Coast Guard issued a policy letter, “Guidelines for Approval of Emergency Drinking Water for Lifeboats and Liferafts,” outlining alternative requirements for the approval of emergency drinking water.
This proposed rule would remove and reserve subpart 160.026 and move the requirements for drinking water from subpart 160.026 to § 199.175(b)(40). The proposed rule would make three changes to the current requirements. First, the emergency drinking water would be required to comply with ISO 18813 paragraph 4.46 rather than the existing requirements in subpart 160.026. Second, the rule would remove the requirement for the Coast Guard to issue a COA and replace it with the requirement for the manufacturer to self-certify that their water meets the requirements outlined in ISO 18813. Third, water quality would be required to be verified by the local municipality or an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard.
Current Coast Guard regulations in subpart 160.026 only allow for the use of cans as water receptacles, while ISO 18813 allows for the use of different types of water receptacles. The 1981 Coast Guard Guidelines allow for the use of flexible material in the water receptacle. ISO 18813 and the Coast Guard Guidelines have the same requirements for the flexible material, and there are no changes in the testing requirements between the Coast Guard Guidelines and ISO 18813. Incorporating ISO 18813 would update regulations to allow flexible material for water receptacles in addition to cans, in accordance with 1981 Coast Guard guidelines.
In addition to the types of equipment discussed above, this proposed rule would also update the survival craft requirements for sailing school vessels found in §§ 169.525 through 169.529. We propose to reference the equipment requirements in § 199.175. This would eliminate the unique requirements for survival craft equipment on sailing school vessels, such as a lantern, matches, illuminating oil, and storm oil.
Material proposed for incorporation by reference is currently listed in § 199.05 and would also be added to the new § 160.046-3. The substance of the individual standards is described in section V. of this preamble, and we have also summarized them in section VII.L. Copies of the material are available to purchase from the publishers at the addresses listed in §§ 160.046-3 and 199.05. Information about purchasing these standards is also available online (via the internet). Before publishing a binding rule, we will submit this material to the Director of the Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. DHS considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
As discussed in section V of this proposed rule, the Coast Guard would remove the requirement for nine types of survival craft equipment to be approved by the Coast Guard from 46 CFR part 160 in subchapter Q (Equipment, Construction, and Materials: Specifications and Approval) and from § 199.175 (Survival Craft and Rescue Boat Equipment). The requirement for COAs on these nine types of equipment (bilge pumps, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, sea anchors, and water) would be replaced by a self-certification requirement, in order to comply with the LSA Code. For those types of equipment that still require a COA, provisions and fire extinguishers, we do not estimate any
Table 3 provides a summary of the affected population, costs, cost savings, and benefits of this proposed rule. The affected population includes the manufacturers of the survival craft equipment and the vessels equipped with survival craft. Additionally, we estimate the potential cost savings to manufacturers by reducing reporting, recordkeeping, and production requirements of this survival craft equipment. We estimate the potential cost savings to vessel owners and operators by the price reductions in survival craft equipment, and we estimate the potential cost savings for the Government for reducing the review necessary for certain equipment. We estimate an annualized cost savings to industry of $335,733 (with a 7-percent discount rate) and an annualized cost savings to Government of $9,142 (with a 7-percent discount rate) for a total annualized cost savings of $344,875. Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimate the total annualized cost savings of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to be $241,000 in 2016 dollars and discounted back to 2016 using a 7-percent discount rate.
This proposed rule would impact four separate affected populations. First, this proposed rule would impact manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved equipment because it changes the standards and approval process for nine types of survival craft equipment. Second, this proposed rule would impact any new and existing U.S.-flagged vessels that carry survival craft because it would reduce the cost of buying and replacing survival craft equipment. Third, this proposed rule would impact small passenger vessels inspected under subchapter K or T because they are required to maintain a separate first-aid kit onboard, and this rule reduces the cost of replacing first-aid kits. Fourth, this proposed rule would impact sailing school vessels, but
Data on manufacturers comes from the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX),
The Coast Guard is proposing to modify approval requirements for nine types of survival craft equipment, discussed in detail in section V of this proposed rule. These nine types of equipment include: (1) Bilge pumps; (2) compasses; (3) first-aid kits for lifeboats and for liferafts; (4) fishing kits; (5) hatchets; (6) jackknives; (7) signaling mirrors; (8) sea anchors; and (9) emergency drinking water. For these nine types of survival equipment, there are 27 unique Coast Guard type-approved products.
The 2018 collection of information, “Supporting Statement for Title 46 CFR Subchapter Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation Equipment, Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part 159)” (OMB Control Number: 1625-0035) estimates that companies would seek Coast Guard approval for 3 percent of the number of survival craft equipment products on the market each year. The Coast Guard estimates that each new product approval replaces a preexisting product approval, such that the total number of approved products would not change each year, as the number of newly approved products has been historically small. Table 4 presents the annual average of new products each year for the nine types of survival craft equipment. To calculate the annual average of new products, we multiplied the values in the “Number of Approved Products” column (table 4), which contains the number of existing approved products for each type of survival craft equipment, by 3 percent (“Percentage of New Approvals Each Year” column).
This proposed rule would impact a total of 14,666 existing vessels. Of these vessels, we estimate the total amount of survival craft maintained by the affected population to be 34,456. Table 5 shows the breakdown of the survival craft population as follows: 2,142 inflatable buoyant apparatuses (IBAs), 25,910 liferafts, 3,472 lifeboats, and 2,932 rescue boats. These vessels, which are categorized by subchapter, are required to carry survival craft in accordance with the applicable regulations.
Table 6 presents vessels by the subchapter to which they are inspected in title 46 of the CFR. “Other vessels” includes public and recreational vessels not subject to inspection. The owners and operators of the 14,666 identified vessels would experience cost savings from the lower estimated cost of replacing equipment after this proposed regulation takes effect. We used this existing vessel population data from MISLE and multiplied it by the average number of IBAs, liferafts, lifeboats, and rescue boats per vessel, which we also retrieved from MISLE, to obtain our estimated survival craft population. This is the existing population of survival craft. Regarding those pieces of survival craft equipment that are non-durable and will be replaced within 10 years, this is the population that provides the number of survival craft that will need to replace Coast Guard-approved equipment with presumably less expensive equipment, because the replacement equipment would not need Coast Guard approval. Those vessels with previously approved survival craft equipment would not be required to replace their survival craft equipment
After establishing the existing number of current survival craft, we then estimate the growth in the number of survival craft each year in order to project out our affected population for the next ten years. To calculate the number of new survival craft each year, we multiply the “Number of New Vessels per Year” by each “Average per Vessel” column in table 6 to obtain our annual totals for each new survival craft type.
We then sum the totals for each survival craft type across each affected subchapter to obtain our estimated population of new survival craft each year for this NPRM. This annual growth in the survival craft population provides an estimate of the number of new survival craft that will enter the market each year. The vessel owners and operators of these craft would experience cost savings from buying some equipment, as discussed in this NPRM, which will no longer need Coast Guard approval. Table 6 presents the estimated total number of new survival craft each year.
This proposed rule would also affect all U.S.-flagged vessel operators regulated under subchapters K and T, as these vessel operators are required to maintain a Coast Guard-approved first-aid kit onboard their vessels, in addition to any first-aid kits carried in the survival craft. The owners and operators of these small passenger vessels would no longer be required to maintain Coast Guard-approved first-aid kits aboard the vessels themselves. Using MISLE data, we estimate there to be 2,069 existing small passenger vessels, with 101 new vessels being built on an annual basis. This number includes all small passenger vessels defined in subchapters K and T, found in §§ 121.710 and 184.710, respectively, regardless of what type of survival craft they have onboard. Therefore, this count may include vessels that do not have an IBA, lifeboat, liferaft, or rescue boats onboard.
The type of equipment each survival craft is required to carry varies depending on the distance a vessel is traveling. Inspected vessels must carry an equipment pack for an international voyage, with the exception of lifeboats on sailing school vessels, which, if they are equipped with lifeboats, must carry the equipment required in §§ 169.527 and 169.529. Currently, based on MISLE data, none of the seven U.S.-flagged sailing school vessels are equipped with lifeboats. Table 7 contains the equipment required by pack and type of survival craft.
Commercial fishing vessels must be equipped with either a Coastal Service pack, a SOLAS A pack, or a SOLAS B pack depending on vessel size, distance traveled, whether the ocean route is designated as a cold-water route or warm-water route, and the number of persons onboard. Table 8 provides a brief description of the packs that can be carried by lifeboats and liferafts.
We used vessel route types from MISLE to estimate the percentage of vessels with a SOLAS A pack compared to a SOLAS B pack. All vessels with “ocean” listed as a route type are presumed to carry survival craft with SOLAS A packs. We estimate the remaining route types, not listed as “ocean,” would have SOLAS B packs. Using commercial fishing vessel data from MISLE and knowledge from subject matter experts from the Coast Guard's Life Saving & Fire Safety Division (CG-ENG-4), who specialize in survival craft data, we estimate that 50 percent of non-ocean going fishing vessels will have Coastal Service packs and 50 percent of non-ocean going fishing vessels will have SOLAS B packs.
We created a distribution of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs by pulling all U.S.-flagged vessels by the inspection subchapter and then pulling these vessels by route type from the MISLE database. We excluded any vessels that did not have survival craft or had an unknown field for survival craft in the MISLE database. The route-type designation included “Ocean” for ocean-going vessels in MISLE,
We then estimated the number of liferafts and lifeboats by equipment pack type for existing and new vessels by looking at the total number of packs carried by lifeboats and liferafts. Table 10 presents the number of SOLAS A, SOLAS B, and Coastal Service packs by liferaft and lifeboat for each subchapter of vessels. The total number of inflatable liferafts with Coastal Service Packs (Column (a)) in table 10 is calculated by multiplying the percentage of Coastal Service Packs in liferafts and lifeboats (column (c) in table 9) by the total number of inflatable liferafts by subchapter (column c) in table 5). Column (b) in table 10, `Short Internatonal/SOLAS B packs for inflatable liferafts', is calculated by multiplying column (d) in table 9, which is the percentage of Short International/SOLAS B packs by vessel subchapter, by column (c) in table 5, which is the total number of inflatable liferafts by subchapter. Column (c) in table 10, `International/Solas A packs for liferafts', is calculated by multiplying column (e) in table 9, which is hte percentage of International/SOLAS A packs by vessel subchapter, by column (c) in table 5, which is the total number of inflatable liferafts by subchapter. Column (e) in table 10, `Short Interntaional/Solas B packs for lifeboats', is calculated by taking the sum of multiplying columns (c) and (d), the percentages of Coastal Packs and Short Intertanional/SOLAS B packs in table 9 by column (e) in table 5, which is the total number of lifeboats by subchapter. Column (f) in table 10, `Interntaional/Solas A packs for lifeboats' is calculated by multiplying column (e) from table 9, which is the percentage of International Packs/SOLAS A, by column (e) in table 5, which is the total number of lifeboats by subchapter.
Table 11 presents the total number of new packs needed each year for new survival craft. This table is calculated by taking the number of new lifeboats and liferafts presented in table 6 and multiplying that figure by the distribution in table 9 to obtain the number of new packs needed for the new liferafts and lifeboats on vessels each year.
We anticipate that this proposed rule would generate a cost savings to: (1) Vessel owners and operators from having the option to purchase less expensive survival craft equipment; (2) equipment manufacturers from reducing reporting, record keeping, and production requirements of survival craft equipment; and (3) the Federal Government from reducing record keeping requirements. The details and calculations of the cost savings are discussed later in this NPRM.
This proposed rule would reduce the burden of review that is required by both industry and the Federal Government. This review includes preparing COA application renewals, and product instructions by certain manufacturers. We presume clerical employees would be responsible for all the manufacturer's recordkeeping activities, and production employees would be responsible for marking equipment and packing instructions. Federal Government employees who possess the technical knowledge of survival craft to review submissions to ensure safety standards would be senior engineers at the GS-14 grade. These employees would be responsible for the review of all the submitted information.
We calculate the costs for each activity by estimating the labor hours required in each labor category and then multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. For this analysis, we calculated private sector wages using 2018 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) for the miscellaneous manufacturing sector (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 339000).
We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved equipment would have a cost savings associated with no longer having to complete COA applications and renewals to obtain and maintain Coast Guard approval. In addition, this proposed rule would remove recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and reduce testing requirements for some pieces of survival equipment.
This proposed rule would modify the approval requirements for nine types of survival craft equipment. For each type of equipment, companies manufacture unique products. In total, there are 27 products for these 9 types of survival craft equipment. These pieces of equipment are the specific items that vessel owners and operators purchase to be in compliance with the vessel carriage regulations found in 46 CFR subchapters C, T, K, and W.
To comply with the lifesaving equipment regulations in 46 CFR subchapter Q, manufacturers submit these products to the Coast Guard for review and approval. Once approved, the manufacturer of each piece of equipment must mark it (or stamp it) with its COA number. Table 13 presents the total number of pieces of survival craft equipment manufactured on an annual basis.
There are two types of survival craft equipment: (1) Items that are durable and need not be replaced or serviced frequently, such as bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits,
The Coast Guard does not have substantive data on how long these durable goods last, and we estimate that these goods would last as long as the survival craft themselves. We request comments from the general public and interested stakeholders regarding the length of time bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, jackknives, signaling mirrors, hatchets, and sea anchors last, and whether they last as long as the survival craft they equip.
We discuss the renewal rate of non-durable goods, first-aid kits, and water later in this analysis.
In the current regulations, manufacturers seeking Coast Guard approval must submit a COA application with information such as technical plans, drawings, specifications, instructional materials, and test reports. In addition to the initial application, manufacturers of Coast Guard approved equipment must also submit application renewals every 5 years to maintain their approval status. Table 4 presents the estimated number of new COA applications for each equipment type, as the annual average number of new products each year.
Table 14 presents the estimated number of application renewals for each equipment type. Since the Coast Guard estimates that one of every five applications will be renewed on an annual basis, the number of renewal applications is equal to 20 percent of the total number of products. Once a product has been approved, the manufacturer must stamp each individual piece of survival craft equipment with the Coast Guard approval number and other information.
We estimate that it would take the technical staff 2 hours
The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements that equipment must be marked with a Coast Guard approval number. With the exception of compasses and hatchets, equipment only needs to be marked to indicate that it meets standards set in ISO 18813. Compasses would no longer need to be marked with their Coast Guard approval number, but would still need to be marked to indicate they meet ISO 25862, as is currently required by the Coast Guard approval guidelines for magnetic compasses in lifeboats and rescue boats. The Coast Guard is proposing that hatchets would not need to be marked at all, as they do not have to meet any consensus standard.
The Coast Guard assumes the burden to mark the equipment is the same whether it is being marked with a Coast Guard approval number or whether it is marked indicating that it meets the ISO standard; therefore, this proposed change would only result in a cost savings to the manufacturers of hatchets. The Coast Guard estimates that
The Coast Guard currently requires that equipment manufacturers provide instruction material with certain types of equipment to ensure that crew members have access to information on the proper use of the equipment. We currently require instructions for five of the nine types of equipment subject to this proposed rulemaking: Compasses, first-aid kits, mirrors, fishing kits and jackknives. ISO 18813 requires instructions for three types of equipment: First-aid kits, mirrors, and fishing kits. ISO 18813 does not state that instructions need to be provided for compasses and jackknives; therefore, the manufacturers of compasses and jackknives would no longer have to develop, maintain, and pack instructions for their products under this proposed rule.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard requires that instructions be updated and submitted with application renewals. Since manufacturers of this equipment would no longer have to submit renewal applications, we estimate that manufacturers would no longer update their instructions, resulting in a cost savings for manufacturers for all five types of equipment. In addition to these cost savings, there is a cost savings associated with removing the need to pack the instructions with the equipment. Using the same methodology to estimate the number of pieces of equipment that need to be marked annually, we estimate that the same number of instructions required to be packed for pieces of equipment would be the same as the number of pieces of equipment required to be marked. Table 16 presents the number of instructions developed and renewed each year under the baseline presented in the subchapter Q ICR.
Based on information in the current subchapter Q ICR, we estimate that it takes 8 hours of technical time, costing $520 (8 hours × $65) to prepare a new set of instructions. Similarly, we estimate that it takes 2 hours of technical time, costing $130 (2 hours × $65) to prepare instructions for renewal submissions. The Coast Guard estimates that packing each set of instructions would incur the same burden (amount of time) as marking each piece of equipment, or 0.06 hours of production. We estimate the cost of marking each piece of equipment to be $1.44 [0.06 hours × $24 (production staff time)].
In tables 17, 18 and 19, we present the total annual industry cost savings for no longer having to develop new instructions for some types of new survival craft equipment, for no longer having to update instructions for renewal applications, and for packing fewer instructions. Table 18 presents the cost savings to develop new instructions for those types of survival craft equipment requiring instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of approximately $63. The total cost in columns (b) and (d), $520, is the loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 8 hours, for preparing a set of new instructions. This table presents the baseline scenario burden, the proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between the two as cost savings.
Table 18 presents the cost savings of no longer having to update instructions for renewal applications, which leads to a total cost savings of about $416 annually. The total cost in columns (b) and (d) is the loaded wage of a safety engineer and inspector, $65, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 2 hours, for preparing instructions for renewal submissions. This table presents the baseline scenario burden, the proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between the two as cost savings.
Table 19 presents the cost savings of having to pack fewer instructions, which leads to a total annual cost savings of approximately $2,218. The total cost in columns (b) and (d) is the loaded wage of a production employee or assembler, $24, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 0.06 hours, for packing instructions. Table 19 presents the baseline scenario burden, the proposed post-regulatory scenario burden, and the difference between the two as cost savings.
As current regulations stand, the Coast Guard requires product testing and recordkeeping for some lifesaving equipment to ensure the equipment meets minimum performance requirements. Table 20 presents a comparison of the current Coast Guard testing requirements and the testing requirements stated in ISO 18813 and ISO 25862 (for compasses). This table also contains a qualitative description of the change in costs associated with modifying the current testing requirements. We were unable to obtain any cost data from the Coast Guard-approved labs that conduct the testing of this equipment.
Based on the information from the current subchapter Q ICR, we estimate that record-keeping takes 2 hours of clerical time per year and costs $58 (2 hours × $29 clerical staff loaded hourly wage rate). The Coast Guard is proposing to remove the requirements for testing records for seven types of equipment listed in this NPRM, as these manufacturers would no longer need these records to document that their product meet the requirements of the ISO 18813. Table 21 presents the total cost savings of about $1,392 to industry from removing requirements to keep records of laboratory testing. The total cost in columns (b) and (d), $58, is the loaded hourly wage of a record clerk, $29, multiplied by the estimated burden of work, 2hours, for fulfilling recordkeeping requirements. This table presents the baseline scenario burden and the post regulatory scenario burden and then presents the difference of the two burdens as cost savings.
The Coast Guard currently requires inspectors to examine the manufacturing process in order to ensure that quality control is maintained throughout. This proposed rule would remove these requirements; however, the Coast Guard is unable to determine if this removal would generate any cost savings to industry. Manufacturers are likely to still have their production line inspected to ensure quality as part of best industry practices. Moreover, manufacturers may continue third-party testing to maintain certifications, such as the ISO 9001 standard, or to meet international regulatory obligations. At the time of this NPRM, the Coast Guard does not have enough information to quantify any potential changes in cost resulting from the changes in inspection requirements.
Additionally, the Coast Guard requires inspecting entities to issue annual reports to enable a comparison between the production line and the prototype tested by the Coast Guard.
Table 23 presents the annual total cost savings to equipment manufacturers. We estimate that manufacturers of Coast Guard-approved bilge pumps, lifeboats, compasses, first-aid kits, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, signaling mirrors, sea anchors, and emergency water would save approximately $20,537 per year.
After gathering price data from a variety of sources, we estimate that removing approval requirements would allow owners and operators of vessels to purchase less expensive equipment.
We then applied percentage price difference between emergency water products and emergency provisions, which had both Coast Guard approval and met the requirements of ISO 18813, and those emergency provisions and water products that only met the requirements of ISO 18813.
We applied this 28-percent price decrease to all the products affected by this proposed rule, with the exception of first-aid kits, because the kit content requirements differ between the ISO standard and current Coast Guard standards, and we estimate the change in price for first-aid kits by the difference in replacement costs for first-aid kits. These differences are explained in further detail in the section,
As discussed in the previous paragraph, we estimate that only new vessels will purchase bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors for their survival craft. Based on population estimates (presented in table 5), 14 new IBAs, 278 new liferafts, 46 new lifeboats, and 41 new rescue boats would be subject to this proposed rule each year. Table 7 lists the survival equipment that lifeboats, liferafts, rescues boats, and IBAs are required to carry. We multiply the populations in table 5 by the carriage requirements in table 7 to yield the total number of items purchased for new survival craft in table 25 below. For example, the Coast Guard requires new lifeboats to be equipped with bilge pumps, and there were 46 new lifeboats recorded in table 5, meaning there will be 46 purchases of new bilge pumps per year.
Table 24 presents the annual cost savings from new vessels removing Coast Guard approval for bilge pumps, compasses, fishing kits, hatchets, jackknives, mirrors, and sea anchors. In total, we estimate an annual cost savings of approximately $99,696 for U.S.-flagged vessels by removing the type approvals for these seven types of survival craft equipment.
As specified in § 199.175(b)(5), the Coast Guard allows jackknives to meet the requirements of a can opener, thereby permitting jackknives to fulfill two requirements. In § 199.175, Table 1 to § 199-175 states that only lifeboats and rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs require can openers, and only lifeboats may carry jackknives. This means that rigid liferafts with SOLAS A packs are currently carrying both knives and can openers. The proposed rule would allow these vessels to replace their knives with jackknives, resulting in a cost savings to vessel owners from being able to purchase only a jackknife instead of both a knife and a can opener. We estimate that there are a total of 179 new liferafts each year that carry SOLAS A packs and, further, assume that these vessel owners and operators would choose to replace a knife with a jackknife, thus forgoing the need to purchase a can opener.
The Coast Guard requires survival craft with SOLAS A packs be stocked with 3 liters of water per person, and that lifeboats with SOLAS B packs be stocked with 1.5 liters of water per person. We estimate the average cost of Coast Guard-approved water to be $4 per liter,
We estimate that industry would save a total of $183,939 on an annual basis
In Years 6 through 10, there would be more cost savings because vessels will have entirely replaced their survival craft by Year 6, as described earlier in this proposed rule, therefore we estimate an annual cost savings of about $196,308 [3,444 survival craft (3227 + 217 new craft) × 19 people × 3 liters of water × -$1 cost savings] for survival craft with SOLAS A packs. Table 26 presents these cost savings.
We used the same methodology when calculating the number of SOLAS A packs in Years 1 through 10 of implementation in order estimate the total costs savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs. There are a total of 728 existing liferafts with SOLAS B packs (see table 10). We estimate that 20 percent of these survival craft or 146 survival craft (728 lifeboats × 20 percent) will replace their emergency water annually. Additionally, all 8 new lifeboats with SOLAS B packs are required to buy emergency water, for a total of 154 survival craft (146 lifeboats + 8 new lifeboats) purchasing emergency water in Years 1 through 5. In Years 6 through 10, the number of existing lifeboats will increase by eight to account for the new vessels that will be built in Years 1 through 5 (154) for a total of 162 survival craft (154 existing survival craft + 8 new lifeboats).
The cost savings for survival craft with SOLAS B packs purchasing emergency water would be approximately $4,389 (154 survival craft
Table 29 presents the total annualized cost savings to vessel owners and operators from removing Coast Guard approval requirements for emergency water. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost savings of about $193,571 with a 7-percent discount rate ($194,162 with 3-percent discount rate).
The Coast Guard is proposing to modify the requirements for first-aid kits so that all survival craft would need to meet the standards outlined in ISO 18813. In addition to removing the testing requirements for the kits, this proposed change would modify the required contents of first-aid kits, by removing the requirements for some items, adding additional items, or changing the number of mandatory items. Since items within the kits expire and need to be replaced, the proposed change would impact both new and existing vessels including small passenger vessels described in the section
We estimate that new vessels with lifeboats or rescue boats will have a cost savings as a result of the proposed changes to first-aid kits because we estimate that first-aid kits that meet the proposed standard are $40 less expensive than Coast Guard-approved kits under approval series 160.041. We estimate that a total of 87 new lifeboats and rescue boats will purchase a first-aid kit each year for a total costs savings of approximately $3,480 (87 survival craft × -$40 cost savings).
The Coast Guard is not requiring existing vessels to replace their current kits; however, existing vessels must replace medication and ointments within the kits by their expiration date. Currently, vessels must replace their iodine swabs, pain relief medication, and eye ointment, which we estimate costs about $19 per kit.
We estimate that first-aid kits that meet the requirements of ISO 18813 will be, on average, $1 less expensive than the Coast Guard-approved kits for liferafts and IBAs.
We calculate that 40 percent (one replacement every 2.5 years) of vessels would replace these items annually. Forty percent of all existing 2,142 IBAs and 24,097 liferafts [table 10 (sum of the totals for SOLAS A and SOLAS B for
This NPRM would also remove Coast Guard approval requirements for first-aid kits aboard small passenger vessels, which the Coast Guard regulates under subchapters K and T. Small passenger vessels are currently required to have first-aid kits approved under approval series 160.041; therefore, we used the same cost savings estimates for replacing first-aid kits in the section titled
Table 32 presents the annual undiscounted total cost savings to vessel owners and operators by equipment type, and table 33 presents the total annualized cost savings. We estimate the total undiscounted costs savings to vessel owners and operators at $3.16 million over a 10-year period of analysis, with an annualized total cost savings of about $315,196 discounted at 7 percent ($315,829 with a 3-percent discount rate).
Table 34 presents the total annualized costs savings to industry over the 10-year period. At a 7-percent discount rate ($336,367 cost savings with a 3-percent discount rate), the cost savings is approximately $335,733.
We estimate that this proposed rule would reduce costs to the Federal Government, since the Coast Guard would no longer review COA applications, application renewals, or inspection reports for the equipment that is subject to this proposed rule. The Coast Guard does not anticipate that this proposed rule would generate any cost savings from vessels inspections, as the proposed rule does not modify any inspection requirements.
In addition to generating a cost savings to industry by removing COA application requirements, this proposed rule would also create a cost savings to the Federal Government, as Coast Guard staff will no longer review new COA applications and renewals. The 2018 Commandant Instruction 7310.1T estimates that it takes 24 hours of a GS-14's time to review each new application and 4 hours to review each renewal.
The Coast Guard currently requires manufacturers to submit an annual report with the results of laboratory inspections, allowing the Coast Guard to ensure the production stock of the equipment will be identical to those originally tested and approved by the Coast Guard. This NPRM would remove this reporting requirement for the equipment subject to the proposed rule, removing the need for the Coast Guard to review these reports. We were unable to obtain data about the costs related to laboratory inspections. We request information and comments from the general public and interested stakeholders regarding information on data related to laboratory inspection costs.
We estimate that it takes approximately 2 hours of a GS-14 senior engineer's time to review each report, costing $210 (2 hours × $105). Table 36 presents the total annual cost saving to the Federal Government for no longer having to review laboratory inspection reports. We estimate these costs would be $4,830 per year.
Table 37 presents the total annual cost savings to the Federal Government. In total, the Coast Guard estimates this proposed rule to generate a cost savings of approximately $9,142 per year.
Many of the current requirements for survival craft equipment were developed in the 1950s and 1960s and have not been significantly updated since they were initially published. Upon a thorough review of these requirements, Coast Guard enforcement procedures, current maritime industry practice, and the availability of new international standards, we have determined that the additional scrutiny of the Coast Guard type approval does not increase or decrease the safety for the equipment subject to this proposed rule. For these nine types of survival craft equipment, the current Coast Guard type approval requirements are outdated and overly prescriptive. Therefore, the Coast Guard anticipates that by having equipment meet international standards, as opposed to Coast Guard standards, there would be no decrease in the level of safety in the maritime environment.
There are non-monetary benefits to owners and operators of vessels with survival craft in having a larger selection of equipment to choose from allowing for potential operational flexibility.
This proposed rule would also implement several changes with no cost impacts. The vast majority of these changes are the result of modifying the current lifeboat equipment requirements for sailing school vessels as stated in § 169.527 to align them with the requirements stated in § 199.175. Table 38 summarizes these changes.
Table 39 presents the total annualized cost savings of this NPRM to both industry and the Federal Government for the 10-year period of analysis. The Coast Guard estimates an annualized cost savings of approximately $345,509 with a 3-percent discount rate and $344,875 with a 7-percent discount rate.
When creating this proposed rule, the Coast Guard considered three alternatives. In this section, we examine how the cost of the proposal would change with each alternative.
Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would accept the status quo and not replace the current approval requirements with an international consensus standard. This alternative would not harmonize with international standards, nor reduce the burden to industry. This would incur approximately $345,000 in annual costs, with no estimated benefits.
Using this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the proposed changes in table 1 regarding the removal of Coast Guard approval standards. This would lead to an estimated $345,000 in annual cost savings without any estimated reduction in benefits, as this analysis shows.
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would still implement the changes proposed in the preferred alternative, but would, in addition, remove the requirement that equipment be marked to indicate it meets ISO 25862, ISO 17339, or ISO 18813. This would lead to an additional annual cost savings of approximately $366,862. We estimate this by multiplying 254,765 pieces of equipment by $1.62 (allowing 0.06 hours × $27 clerical rate per hour for the time and cost to mark each piece of equipment). This would lead to a total cost savings of $711,737, which we calculated by adding the additional savings from no markings ($366,862) to the total estimated cost savings of this proposed rule, as shown in alternative 2 ($345,000).
We reject this alternative for the preferred alternative, since eliminating the markings would make it impossible for the Coast Guard to verify if equipment is in compliance with regulations. This alternative could potentially lead to a decrease in safety, if vessel owners and operators purchased ISO non-compliant products that were not sufficiently safe or reliable
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard expects that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. We expect this proposed rule to result in net cost savings to regulated entities.
We estimate there to be 11,139 unique vessel operators and 16 equipment manufacturers affected by this proposed rule. For this analysis, we presumed any company for which we were not able to find Small Business Administration (SBA) size data to be a small entity. An estimated 94 percent of the regulated entities (including the companies without SBA size data) are considered to be small by SBA industry size standards. Using MISLE data, the Coast Guard estimates there to be 11,155 unique companies affected in this proposed rule. We estimate that the average costs to equipment manufacturers would be reduced by $1,445 per year, and the average costs to vessel owners and operators would be reduced by $37.14 per year as a result of removing Coast Guard approval for the equipment subject to the proposed rulemaking. We calculate that 100 percent of the 10,487 (0.94 × 11,155) small vessel operators and 100 percent of small equipment manufacturers impacted by this proposed rule would have a cost savings less than 1 percent of their annual revenue. No small governmental jurisdictions would be impacted by this proposed rule.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This proposed rule would call for a revision to an approved collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
In table 41, we estimate the reduction in the number of annual responses based on application type.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information to help us determine, among other things—
• How useful the information is;
• Whether the information can help us perform our functions better;
• How we can improve the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information;
• Whether the information is readily available elsewhere;
• How accurate our estimate is of the burden of collection;
• How valid our methods are for determining the burden of collection; and
• How we can minimize the burden of collection.
If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit them by the date listed in the
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in this proposed rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved by Congress for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories regulated under 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4502, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule uses technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies to meet the stringent equipment requirements for survival craft and rescue boats onboard U.S.-flagged vessels. These standards provide internationally accepted and recognized parameters which the equipment must meet in order to ensure its safety, proper usage, and preservation on the seas. The standards being incorporated were developed by either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the ISO, which are voluntary consensus standard-setting organizations. The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR parts 160 and 199.
Two ASTM standards would be updated and incorporated by reference in this rulemaking: (1) ASTM F 1003-02 “Standard Specification for Searchlights on Motor Lifeboats” (2007); and (2) ASTM F 1014-02 “Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels” (2002). These ASTM standards specify requirements for construction, including materials, dimensions, performance and/or capability. The newer versions are not materially different from the previous versions. We do not propose to update the third ASTM standard already incorporated in § 199.05, ASTM 93-97, “Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.”
The following three ISO standards listed here would be incorporated by reference in this rulemaking:
This standard specifies design, performance, and use of various items of survival equipment carried in survival craft and rescue boats complying with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974 (as amended), and the International Maritime Organization Life-Saving Appliance Code (LSA Code). It also includes guidelines for maintenance and periodic inspections for many items.
This standard gives requirements regarding construction and performance of marine magnetic compasses for navigation and steering purposes, binnacles and azimuth reading devices.
This standard specifies requirements for the design, performance and prototype testing of sea anchors for survival craft (liferafts and lifeboats) and rescue boats in accordance with the LSA Code.
With this rulemaking, we also propose to update our incorporation by reference of Resolution MSC.4(48) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), 1994, and the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code), 1993, to reflect the updated editions. No changes to the specific referenced material have been made between those older editions and the 2016 editions. The IBC Code provides an international standard for the safe transport by sea of dangerous and noxious liquid chemicals in bulk. The purpose of the IGC Code is to provide an international standard for the safe transport by sea in bulk of liquefied gases and certain other substances.
Consistent with 1 CFR part 51 incorporation by reference provisions, this material is reasonably available. Interested persons have access to it through their normal course of business, may purchase it from the organization identified in 46 CFR 160.046-3, 169.115 or 199.05 or online (via the internet), or may view a copy by means we have identified in those sections. Members and representatives of the regulated industries are also participants in the standards development organizations.
If you disagree with our analysis of these standards or are aware of standards that might apply but are not listed, please send a comment explaining your disagreement or identifying additional standards to the docket using one of the methods listed in the
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
This proposed rule is intended to remove the Coast Guard type approval requirement for some survival craft equipment, and replace it with the requirement that the manufacturer self-certify that their equipment complies with a consensus standard. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels.
Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving equipment, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Vessels.
Communications equipment, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Cargo vessels, Incorporation by reference, Lifesaving systems for certain inspected vessels, Marine safety, Oil and gas exploration, Passenger vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 121, 160, 169, 184, and 199 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a suitable, watertight container that is marked “First-Aid Kit”. A first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703, 4102, 4302, and 4502 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b).
(a) * * *
(12) * * *
(ii)
(e) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii)
Emergency provisions approved to be carried in lifeboats and liferafts.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426, email
(b) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland,
(1) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology—Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for §§ 160.046-5, 160.046-7, and 160.046-11.
(2) [Reserved]
Emergency provisions must meet the requirements found in ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.046-3).
Unless the Commandant directs otherwise, an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR 159.010 must perform or witness, as appropriate, inspections, tests, and oversight required by ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.046-3). Approval and production tests of emergency provisions must be carried out in accordance with the procedures for
(a) Each emergency provision must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with the requirements of this subpart.
(b) The container should be clearly and permanently marked with:
(1) The name and address of the approval holder;
(2) The U.S. Coast Guard Approval number;
(3) The total food energy value of provisions in the container in Calories and kiloJoules;
(4) The lot number;
(5) The month and year the provision was packed; and
(6) The month and year of expiration (5 years after the date of packing).
(c) The emergency provision must include waterproof instructions for use, assuming consumption of 3350 kiloJoules per person per day.
Each manufacturer of emergency provisions approved in accordance with the specifications of this subpart must send a test report required by ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.31.2 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.046-3) to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7509 or email
(a) With the application for approval;
(b) Every year as long as the manufacturer continues to produce provisions; and
(c) Each time the contents of the emergency provisions change.
(b)
(b) * * *
(23)
(b)
(h)
(o)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(b) * * *
(22)
33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
(a) All lifeboats must be equipped in accordance with Table 1 to § 199.175 of this chapter except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) The following equipment must be carried in addition to the equipment required under § 199.175 of this chapter:
(1) Cover;
(2) Ditty bag; and
(3) Mast and sail.
(c) If operating on protected waters, lifeboat equipment need only to consist of the following:
(1) Boathook—(1);
(2) Bucket—(1);
(3) Fire extinguisher—(2) U.S Coast Guard approved Type B-C (motor propelled lifeboats only);
(4) Hatch—(1);
(5) Lifeline—(1);
(6) Oar unit—(1);
(7) Painter—(1);
(8) Plug—(1);
(9) Oarlock unit—(1); and
(10) Toolkit (motor propelled lifeboats only).
(a) All lifeboat equipment must meet the requirements under § 199.175 of this chapter, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The following equipment, carried in addition to the equipment required under § 199.175 of this chapter, must meet the following requirements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a suitable, watertight container that is marked “First-Aid Kit”. A first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3103, 3306, 3703; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II, (92)(b).
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference in this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG-4), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593-7501, telephone 202-372-1426 or email
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference (IBR) in this part and the sections affected are as follows:
(1) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500,
(i) ASTM D 93-97, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, 1997, IBR approved for §§ 199.261 and 199.290.
(ii) ASTM F 1003-02, Standard Specification for Searchlights on Motor Lifeboats, 2007, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(iii) ASTM F 1014-02, Standard Specification for Flashlights on Vessels, 2002, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(2) International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7SR, United Kingdom,
(i) MSC Circular 699, Revised Guidelines for Passenger Safety Instructions, 17 July 1995, IBR approved for § 199.217.
(ii) Resolution A.520(13), Code of Practice for the Evaluation, Testing and Acceptance of Prototype Novel Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements, 17 November 1983, IBR approved for § 199.40.
(iii) Resolution A.657(16), Instructions for Action in Survival Craft, 19 November 1989, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(iv) Resolution A.658(16), Use and Fitting of Retro-reflective Materials on Life-saving Appliances, 20 November 1989, IBR approved for §§ 199.70 and 199.176.
(v) Resolution A.760(18), Symbols Related to Life-saving Appliances and Arrangements, 17 November 1993, IBR approved for §§ 199.70 and 199.90.
(vi) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code), 2016, Chapter 17, IBR approved for § 199.30 and Chapter 2 approved for § 199.280.
(vii) International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk, (IGC Code), 2016, Chapter 19, IBR approved for § 199.30, and Chapter 2, IBR approved for § 199.280.
(3) International Standard Organization (ISO), BIBC II, Chemin de Blandonnet 8, CP 401, 1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland,
(i) ISO 18813:2006 Ships and marine technology—Survival equipment for survival craft and rescue boats, 2006, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(ii) ISO 25862:2009 Ships and marine technology—Marine magnetic compasses, binnacles and azimuth reading devices, 2009, IBR approved for § 199.175.
(iii) ISO 17339:2018 Ships and marine technology—Life saving and fire protection— Sea anchors for survival craft and rescue boats, 2018, IBR approved for § 199.175.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Must be packed in a suitable and compact form;
(5) Must be marked with either the Coast Guard approval number or the standard that the product meets, as applicable; and
(b) Each lifeboat, rigid liferaft, and rescue boat, unless otherwise stated in this paragraph (b), must carry the equipment listed in this paragraph (b) and specified for it in Table 1 to this section under the vessel's category of service. A lifeboat that is also a rescue boat must carry the equipment in the table column marked for a lifeboat.
(2)
(5)
(6)
(i) In a totally enclosed lifeboat, the compass must be permanently fitted at the steering position; in any other boat it must be provided with a binnacle, if necessary, to protect it from the weather, and with suitable mounting arrangements.
(ii) The compass must be tested in accordance with the provisions in ISO 25862:2009 Annex H (incorporated by
(9)
(10)
(i) A first-aid kit may be considered acceptable if it meets all of the requirements of ISO 18813:2006 paragraph 4.12, except that it does not contain the burn preparation. It must be clearly marked on the first-aid kit that it does not include the burn preparations.
(ii) Medicinal products must be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
(11)
(13)
(i) The hatchet must be at least 14 inches in length and have a cutting edge of approximately 3-
(ii) The hatchet must be provided a lanyard at least 3 feet in length.
(iii) The hatchet must be stowed in brackets near the release mechanism and, if more than one hatchet is carried, the hatchets must be stowed at opposite ends of the boat.
(16)
(17) * * *
(i) The knife for a rigid liferaft must be secured to the raft by a lanyard and stowed in a pocket on the exterior of the canopy near the point where the painter is attached to the liferaft. If an approved jackknife is substituted for the second knife required on a liferaft equipped for 13 or more persons, the jackknife must also be secured to the liferaft by a lanyard.
(ii) The knife in an inflatable or rigid-inflatable rescue boat must be of a type designed to minimize the possibility of damage to the fabric portions of the hull.
(iii) Any knife may be replaced with a jackknife meeting the requirements in paragraph (b)(16) of this section.
(19)
(27) * * *
(i) The sea anchor for a lifeboat, rescue boat, and rigid liferaft must meet the requirements in ISO 17339:2018 (incorporated by reference, see § 199.05).
(40)
(i) The water must meet the U.S. Public Health Service “Drinking Water Standards” in 40 CFR part 141 to suitably protect the container against corrosion. After treatment and packing, the water must be free from organic matter, sediment and odor. It must have a pH between 7.0 and 9.0 as determined by means of a standard pH meter using glass electrodes. Water quality must be verified by the local municipality or independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(ii) Containers of emergency drinking water must be tested in accordance with the provisions in ISO 18813:2006 by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard in accordance with part 159, subpart 159.010, of this chapter.
(iii) Up to one-third of the emergency drinking water may be replaced by a desalting apparatus approved under part 160, subpart 160.058, of this chapter that is capable of producing the substituted amount of water in 2 days.
(iv) Up to two-thirds of the emergency drinking water may be replaced by a manually powered, reverse osmosis desalinator approved under part 160, subpart 160.058, of this chapter that is capable of producing the substituted amount of water in 2 days.
(c) Any Coast Guard approved equipment on board before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] may remain on board as long as it remains in good and serviceable condition.